특수절도등
The judgment below
Among them, the part on the violation of the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed driving) shall be reversed.
A fine shall be imposed on Defendant 300.
1. In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, including the statements of C, D and C, the gist of the grounds for appeal, the court below acquitted the defendant, although the defendant could fully recognize the fact that the wing wing wing wing wing wing wing was driven without the motor vehicle driver's license, and the court below acquitted the defendant. The judgment of the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination on the assertion of mistake as to special larceny
A. The summary of this part of the facts charged was known to the Defendant.
C, D, E, and F, on November 23, 2014, at around 22:00, 22:00, 2014, the victim B, who was parked in the roads near Busan G, Busan, had no number plate equivalent to KRW 1,00,00, the market price of the victim B, and the Defendant D, E, and F, considered the surrounding areas, and reported the network, and C used the key of the Otobba, which was in possession, to cut off by driving the Oba in the above Oba, by putting it into the Oba, and by driving it at the speed of the Oba in the above Oba, by means of a scam.
Accordingly, the defendant stolen the property owned by the victim together with C, D, E, and F.
B. The lower court determined that the following circumstances acknowledged by the record: (a) it is difficult to believe that the statements of C and D, which seem to correspond to this part of the facts charged, are inconsistent; (b) even C, at the court of the lower court, had the view that she could be aware of her memory at the original investigation agency; and (c) D, at the original investigation agency of the lower court, had the same effect as himself and C
The testimony was made after hearing C’s statement, and the testimony was reversed with the content that he, C, F, E, and Defendant was at the theft site, and ② was at the theft site.
E/F consistently deemed that the Defendant was not present at a theft site.
In light of the statement, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is the defendant.