절도
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal by the defendant and his defense counsel
A. Despite the fact that there was no theft of the two clothing points equivalent to KRW 65,800 in the “E” store located in D, the Defendant erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby finding the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged.
B. In light of the fact that the criminal defendant was not subject to criminal punishment and that the degree of damage is minor, the sentence of the lower court that sentenced a fine of KRW 300,000 is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. On December 6, 2015, the Defendant, at around 22:50 on the instant facts charged, cut off the clothes of KRW 65,80,00, including 1,90, and 1,000, the market price of 49,90,000, which was displayed on the 'E' 'E' 'E operated by the victim F of the victim F with D 3 floors located in Osan-si, Sinsan-si, and 'E', which was displayed on the 'E' 'E' 1,90,000, and 1,000, the market price of which was 15,90 won.
B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged based on the Defendant’s partial legal statement, F’s legal statement, each investigation report, and video CD.
However, we cannot accept the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.
(c)
(1) First, the court below's determination (1) is found to have been admitted as evidence of guilt.
(A) The Defendant’s statement in the lower court is consistently denying the instant facts charged by asserting that there was no fact that he had consistently stolen two clothes from the investigative agency to the trial of the party. As such, the Defendant’s statement in the lower court cannot be a evidence of guilt as to the instant facts charged.
(B) F’s statement in the lower court in the lower court’s judgment that “F’s statement in the lower court did not have two clothes for the store owner.”
As a result of the verification of CCTV images around the store, the same type of the clothes that the Defendant entered with “I” studio was found, but the above studio was not found due to the lack of such verification.