절도등
All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of seven million won.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. As to the judgment of the court of first instance, the Defendant did not steals approximately 60 camblings owned by the victim M, such as misunderstanding of facts in the facts charged. 2) The punishment of the court of first instance (2 million won of fine) sentenced by the court of first instance on unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.
B. As to the judgment of the court below of second instance, the defendant did not inflict an injury upon the victim C at the time of her bucking as stated in the facts charged. 2) The punishment sentenced by the court of second instance (the fine of KRW 5 million and the cost of lawsuit) is too unreasonable.
2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, the judgment of the first and second judgment against the defendant was rendered and the judgment of the court below against the defendant was rendered, and the defendant filed an appeal against them, and this court decided to hold concurrent hearings of the two appeals cases. The first and second judgment against the defendant is in a concurrent relationship with the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, one punishment should be imposed pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is.
However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts against the judgment of the court below is still subject to the judgment of the court of this Court, which will be examined below.
3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts
A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the first instance court, it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant thefted approximately 60 persons from the victim M as stated in the facts charged.
Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.
1) From January 2016, the Defendant is the Gangseo-gu Busan Lickter (hereinafter “instant emptyter”).
The building materials have been stored, such as fry, etc. owned by the Defendant, and the victim M is an introduction of U from February 2018.