자동차불법사용등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.
However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal by the defendant;
A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant temporarily uses a motor vehicle according to the victim I’s consent or consent, and thus, the crime of unlawful use of the motor vehicle is not established.
B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment with prison labor, and one year of short term) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty on the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine by driving a vehicle of soflur without the victim I’s consent, based on the Defendant’s confession statement and the I’s police statement corresponding thereto.
Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the record, the lower court’s determination on the above facts is just and acceptable. In so determining, contrary to what is alleged in the Defendant’s appeal, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the consent of the victim.
shall not be deemed to exist.
(1) The Defendant reversed his statement that is recognized by an investigative agency as being denied some other criminal facts, while, with respect to a crime of illegal use by motor vehicle, the Defendant consistently committed the crime of illegal use by the victim I from the first investigation to the court of the court below, and driving the motor vehicle with the key of a sirend vehicle without the consent of the victim.
The statement (Evidence No. 112, 36, 254, page No. 188 of the trial record, page No. 188 of the trial record, etc.) and 2. The victim, without the consent of the investigative agency, tried to have the defendant in his/her house, taken the keys in the book.
he/she has driven a sirened vehicle, and he/she has taken it;
The statement is consistent with the above statement of the defendant (Evidence 198 pages). ③ The defendant seems to have taken the key in the his book instead of directly moving the key to the defendant. ④ At the time of the crime, the defendant was a minor and unlicensed state, and the victim was accompanied by the above vehicle.