절도등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and two months.
40,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Illegal use of convenience facilities is a crime of using pay automatic equipment without paying a price by unlawful means, and thus, it constitutes a crime of unlawful use of convenience facilities.
Nevertheless, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts charged or by misunderstanding the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
B. The sentence of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable for the Defendant (as to the part of the charge).
2. Judgment of the court below on the acquittal portion
A. On June 8, 2016, the summary of the facts charged, “2018 Highest 2581, the Defendant was driving a motor vehicle at the Daegu Busan Metropolitan City Highway, Daegu Metropolitan City 21-5, Daegu Metropolitan City, Daegu, Daegu, Daegu, Daegu, in the Daegu Office of Business around 15:24, 2016, and, at the same time, the Defendant was driving a motor vehicle at a new Daegu, Daegu, Daegu, Daegu, Daegu, where no lower-do terminal is installed, and used a fee automatic facility installed at that place for driving the motor vehicle to free on the expressway by using the same method as a total of 204 times from that time until August 5, 2018.
Accordingly, the defendant did not pay the price by illegal means, and acquired a total of 3,264,650 won of property benefits using pay automatic equipment.
B. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the unlawful use of convenience facilities in the facts charged of the instant case on the ground that “The Defendant cannot be deemed as a method ordinarily used by the facility, and the Defendant is merely a method using the facility installed instead of the facility. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant used the facility without paying the fee by unlawful means, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.”
C. The relevant legal principles of this Court’s judgment 1.