특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(절도)
All appeals by the prosecutor and the defendant are dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Prosecutor 1) In light of the fact-misunderstanding on March 11, 2016 at the scene of larceny and the fact-finding discovered at the scene of larceny on March 26, 2016, it is reasonable to view the same criminal act as a criminal act in light of the following: (a) the method of crime was the same; and (b) the place of crime is located in an adjacent area.
As long as the crime of larceny on March 26, 2016 is recognized as the defendant's act, the crime of larceny on March 11, 2016 should also be found guilty.
In the case of larceny on April 1, 2016, when considering the criminal conduct and movement routes on the day of the defendant, the location, time, etc. of the defendant on CCTV images, the crime of larceny No. 6-9 times in the order of the defendant to commit larceny set forth in attached Form 10 (hereinafter referred to as the "crime List") in the judgment of the court below, also committed the crime of larceny No. 10 times in the order of the defendant to commit the larceny.
It is reasonable to view it.
2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unhued and unfair.
B. Defendant 1) The Defendant, who misleads the Defendant of the fact, did not enter or commit a theft in the place around the crime inundation Nos. 4, 5, and 10.
Although the figures expressed in CCTV images are not the defendant, the court below erred by erroneous determination that the defendant was guilty of the crime Nos. 4, 5, and 10 of the list of crimes only with the reason that the defendant sustained the clothes similar to the figures and the statement of the victim without credibility.
2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant is too unreasonable.
2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts
A. On March 26, 2016, the lower court acknowledged the following circumstances based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court’s judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts (i.e., theft Nos. 4 and 5). According to this, the Defendant invaded upon the victim’s house and stolen money and valuables as indicated in the Nos. 4 and 5 of the Crime List No. 26, Mar. 26, 2016.