beta
(영문) 인천지방법원 2016.07.22 2015노4329

상습절도등

Text

All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

Of the disposition of the lower court, “Habitual larceny” in paragraph (3) of the same Article.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the court below found the defendant guilty of the crime committed or attempted to commit a theft in the list of crimes attached to the court below, jointly with two or more persons who habitually failed to obtain the name. Thus, the court below found the defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (two years of suspended sentence in the month of imprisonment with prison labor) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination as to the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts

A. In a criminal trial, the conviction of guilt should be based on evidence with probative value, which could lead a judge to feel true enough to have a reasonable doubt. Unless such proof is given, the conviction cannot be determined even if there is a suspicion of guilt against the defendant.

In addition, in light of the fact that the appellate court has the character as a post-trial and the spirit of substantial direct trial as provided in the Criminal Procedure Act, there is insufficient evidence to exclude reasonable doubts after the first instance court has gone through the examination of evidence such as examination of witness, etc.

In a case where a not-guilty verdict is rendered on the facts charged, if it does not reach the extent that it can sufficiently resolve the reasonable doubt raised by the first instance trial even if the probability or doubt about some opposing facts may be raised as a result of the appellate trial’s examination, there is an error of mistake in the determination of facts in the first instance judgment, which lacks proof of crime solely

In conclusion, the charge shall not be found guilty (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do8610, Apr. 15, 2016). B. As stated in its holding, the lower court directly classified or partly classified a larceny damage area where the Defendant passes around a certain scene of crime or is not reported to an investigation agency.