특수절도등
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The lower court found the Defendant guilty pursuant to Article 30 of the Criminal Act on the following grounds: (a) on September 18, 2014, the charge of each of the instant special larceny and each of the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint residence intrusion) was acquitted on September 8, 2016; and (b) on September 8, 2016, on the charge of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint residence intrusion), the lower court found the Defendant guilty of entering the said structure solely on the basis of the non-guilty charge.
On the other hand, only the defendant appealed on the ground of mistake of facts in the judgment of the court below, and the prosecutor did not appeal.
Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant (including the part not guilty in the grounds of appeal) shall be transferred to this court by the principle of no appeal, but that part shall already deviate from the object of attack and defense between the parties, and shall not be judged in that part (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Do5014, Oct. 28, 2004; 2009Do12934, Jan. 14, 2010); and the decision of the court below shall be followed.
As such, the acquittal portion of the lower judgment (including the acquittal portion in the grounds) was excluded from the scope of the trial of this court, which became final and conclusive by the Defendant and the prosecutor.
2. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the fact-finding) was found to have been in Daejeon on September 8, 2016, which was the day before the crime of this part was committed by the Defendant from September 7, 2016, which was the day before the crime of this part. However, the Defendant merely went to Daejeon and did not go to Daejeon, and there was no fact between the place indicated in the facts charged, and there was no fact that the Defendant participated in this part of the crime.
3. There was no new objective reason that could affect the formation of a documentary evidence in the appellate court’s trial process, and the judgment of the court of first instance was clearly erroneous.
The arguments leading to the fact-finding are logical.