beta
(영문) 부산지방법원 2014.07.24 2014노1350

절도

Text

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. Defendant B (1) 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles did not have the intention of larceny, and even though there was no participation or conspiracy in Defendant A’s act, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of the facts. Even if not, the lower court’s sentencing (suspension of sentence) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles were living together with the victim G’s relatives, and thus, the Defendant should be exempted from punishment under Articles 344 and 328 of the Criminal Act. However, the lower court’s judgment convicting the Defendant of the instant facts charged on the ground that the Defendant did not live with the victim, which erred by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) Even if not, the lower court’s sentencing (700,000 won of fine) is too unreasonable

Judgment

A. As to Defendant B’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the following circumstances that can be acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, namely, ① the building of Kimhae-si was registered as co-ownership of Defendant B and the victim G from November 2, 2010 to November 2, 2010, and Defendant B also knew that the building was registered as co-ownership with G around August 2012, which was prior to the occurrence of the instant case, and ② Defendant B made a talk with Haman on August 2012, 2012, because the conversation between G and the building was not well-contested, but H also made a statement to the effect that “I made a co-ownership of money, so it would have invested in money,” and lastly, Defendant B made a statement with the certificate of completion on August 16, 2012, which was the day immediately preceding the instant case but no longer H is possible.