특수절도
1. The part of the judgment of the court below regarding Defendant B shall be reversed.
A. Defendant B shall be punished by a fine of five million won.
(b).
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the prosecutor 1) found the Defendants guilty of theft of the machinery owned by the victim, jointly with the Defendants.
Nevertheless, the court below found Defendant A not guilty, and found Defendant B guilty only for the sole larceny. The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
2) The lower court’s punishment that was unfair in sentencing against Defendant B (eight months of imprisonment) is too unhued and unreasonable.
B. It is true that Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (Section 1) has been established at the site of aggregate production in G (hereinafter “resident site”) located in the part of the machinery owned by the victim to the site of aggregate production in K and 24 lots outside K at Haju (hereinafter “water security site”).
However, since the defendant purchased it from the damaged party, the defendant transferred it as above.
Even if it can not be said that another person's property was stolen, and there was no intention to acquire illegal property because the victim consented to the installation of the above transfer.
B) Among the damaged goods recognized by the court below, screen (2470), 7 container, 1 container labeling has not been moved to the defense site by the defendant.
2) The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. The Defendants’ summary of the charges of special larceny, the lower court’s judgment, and the additional prosecutor of the ancillary charges, as described in the first clause “A”, charged the Defendants with special larceny. The lower court acquitted the Defendants of special larceny on the grounds that it is difficult to recognize the Defendants’ participation in the theft of the machinery owned by the victims by the Defendant A, and found the Defendants guilty of only the simple larceny of the Defendants B.
This is true by the prosecutor.