절도
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal by the defendant and his defense counsel
A. The Defendant, as stated in the facts charged, did not commit a theft of a room.
On June 12, 2016, in which the instant case occurred, the Defendant was unable to take a bridge to move along with the hospital treatment on the new wall and, as shown in the facts charged, it was practically impossible for the Defendant to take a theft from the tree rooms cultivated by the victim D during the period from June 12, 2016 to June 13, 2016. Since it is not the principal, the Defendant is not the victim of CCTV, and thus, the Defendant was punished by larceny.
shall not be deemed to exist.
Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, thereby misunderstanding the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
B. The lower court’s sentence that declared 300,000 won of an unfair fine for sentencing is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. As alleged in the grounds of appeal, the Defendant alleged that there was no fact that there was no theft of a room cultivated by the victim D, as alleged in the grounds of appeal. The lower court determined that ① according to the CCTV images taken at the time of the crime, according to the CCTV images taken by the Defendant, the Defendant was unable to steal the room because, after having entered a dry field where a man who sawds trees were planted on the left side, a man was slided for about 10 minutes, and then a man was slided for a red fluor. ② The victim D, who directly confirmed CCTV images after committing the crime, stated that the Defendant, who was a fluor resident with the images, made a statement that the male in the video was clearly aware of the fact that the victim D, who was a fluore resident with the image, was a fluore resident with the front side of the road accident around June 12, 2016, the Defendant was hospitalized.
However, according to the factual inquiry inquiry letter (Tol University Slick Hospital), the defendant was found to have discharged the defendant from the emergency room of the above hospital by visiting the emergency room of June 12, 2016 to 03:29 to 04:14, after treating the part on the left side, and it appears that there was no fact of hospitalization as alleged.