절도
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. According to the CCTV image of the grounds of appeal, the form of a person who is particularly suspected of committing a theft of the victim's bank is not confirmed, except the defendant, in the vicinity of the place where the damage was caused (hereinafter referred to as the "victim") at the time of the occurrence of the case. The time required for the CCTV image to see the place where the damage was caused by the CCTV and to keep the wheels up to the time when the damage was unsatisfed, is about 25 seconds. The time required for the CCTV image to see the damaged area and the time required for the CCTV image to unsatisfed. In the vicinity of the above CCTV damage area, there was no other person except the defendant, and
25 seconds, other than the defendant, there is a probability that other people in addition to the defendant has stolen the bank of the victim and again stolen the CCTV blind site during the time of damage.
Comprehensively taking account of the fact that it is difficult to see, the Defendant could recognize that the Defendant stolen the victim’s bags, etc. as stated in the instant facts charged.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the charged facts of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of judgment.
2. On August 2, 2016, at around 08:42, the Defendant: (a) destroyed the gap in which the surrounding surveillance was neglected in India at the front of the construction site of Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si; and (b) destroyed by another victim D ( South, 46 years old) attached to the said place, the Defendant stolen one of Samsung gallons containing J5 mobilephones, resident registration certificates, etc.
3. The lower court consistently stated that the Defendant did not steals the victim bank from the investigation stage to the court of the lower court. Examining the following circumstances, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was proven without reasonable doubt.
It is difficult to see it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
A. The CCTV around the damaged area (hereinafter “the CCTV of this case”) respectively.