절도
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence presented by the prosecutor in the gist of the grounds for appeal, the court below found the defendant guilty of the charge of this case, since the court below found the defendant guilty of the charge of this case, it erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. The summary of the facts charged is as follows: (a) the Defendant was a person engaged in the joint gold metal trade business in Jinhae-gu, Changwon-si, D Co., Ltd.; (b) the victim G, the president of the FF located in Kimhae-si, his business partner Kim Jong-si (hereinafter “instant company”); (c) attempted to dismiss the victim G, who was the president of his business partner, in default and is missing; and (d) on June 13, 2009, the Defendant, driving the instant vehicle parked in ma in the factory of the instant company, and driving it directly from 500 meters away from her place to her market price, thereby cutting down the instant vehicle in excess of KRW 12 million.
B. The lower court rendered a judgment that acquitted the Defendant on the grounds that the prosecutor’s evidence submitted, among the evidence, the police interrogation protocol and the protocol of statement of statement, and the protocol of statement of statement of the police statement of G, and that he consented to bringing the Defendant to bring the Defendant into the police according to I and G’s respective statements in the protocol of trial, and that the remainder of the evidence alone is insufficient to find the Defendant guilty
C. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court and the lower court, it can be recognized that the Defendant brought about the instant car without the consent of the victim.
1. At the court below and the court below before remand, I testified to the effect that "the injured party's factory machinery, etc. without any bank mortgage, etc. at the time of the bankruptcy of the company of this case is the name of the settlement price for the supply of unsettlemented goods", but after the remand.