특수절도등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant
A Imprisonment for one year, and each of the defendants B shall be punished by a fine of 2,00,000 won.
Defendant .
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Improper sentencing of Defendant A
B. Prosecutor 1) According to the evidence of misunderstanding the facts (as to the crime of this case by Defendants 2016 order 1621), even if Defendant B shared the commission of the larceny on September 16, 2016 and recognized the Defendants’ special larceny by doing an act to facilitate theft, the lower court determined that it is insufficient to recognize the Defendants’ participation in the crime of larceny, and recognized Defendant A only for larceny, and sentenced Defendant B not guilty. The lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2) Improper sentencing (as to Defendant A)
2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by Defendant A and the prosecutor ex officio, prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the public prosecutor, the public prosecutor maintained the facts charged in the judgment of the court below 2016 order order 1621 which was subject to the judgment of the court below as the primary facts charged, and added the facts charged in the following facts charged [2016 order 1621] as the preliminary facts charged, and changed the name of the crime against Defendant A as “special larceny (special larceny)”, and the name of the crime against Defendant B as “special larceny (special larceny: aiding and abetting special larceny)”. Article 331(2) and Article 331(1) of the Criminal Act applicable to Defendant A applied to Defendant B as “Article 329 of the Criminal Act”, and Article 331(2) and (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to Defendant B applied to each court for permission to amend the amendment of the indictment by adding them to each of the following circumstances: Article 329 of the Criminal Act.
In this respect, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.
However, the Prosecutor’s assertion of mistake as to the facts charged prior to the change of the 2016 order order 1621 case (it was changed from the trial to the primary facts charged) is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is the following.