특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(절도)
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The gist of the grounds for appeal lies in the Defendant’s act of larcenying this case on the sole basis of the evidence presented by the Prosecutor, including the following: the Defendant was placed around the Sung Party and △△△ Party for the purpose of tourism, etc.; the Defendant did not speak at the investigative agency to acknowledge the facts charged; and there was no direct marking of the Defendant’s theft crime even around CCTV.
The judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case cannot be determined by the determination of the judgment.
2. Where there are no new objective grounds that may affect the formation of documentary evidence in the course of the appellate trial’s trial, and there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the determination of the first instance court was clearly erroneous, or that the argument leading to the acknowledgement of facts was remarkably unfair due to the violation of logical and empirical rules, etc., the judgment on the acknowledgement of facts in the first instance shall not be reversed without permission (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031, Mar. 22, 2017). The Defendant asserted that this part of the grounds for appeal are the same, and the lower court rejected this assertion in detail in the “2. Determination on the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel” of the “judgment on the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel” of the said judgment.
There is no reasonable ground to deem that it is remarkably unfair to maintain the judgment as it is in violation of logical and empirical rules that the judgment of evidence was clearly erroneous or that the argument leading to the acknowledgement of facts was against the logical and empirical rules.
In addition, there is no objective reason to affect the formation of a documentary evidence even in the trial process of a court.
The judgment below did not err in the misapprehension of facts as alleged by the defendant, and thus, the defendant's assertion is not accepted.
3. The appeal by the defendant is dismissed on the ground that the appeal by the defendant is without merit, and ex officio.