특수절도등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.
However, the period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. According to the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, there was an implied conspiracy between the Defendants on the thief crime.
(2) If the action was carried out, the action was also carried out
may be seen.
However, the judgment of the court below which acquitted Defendant B of special larceny on the ground that it cannot be recognized that Defendant B shared the commission of the thief by Defendant A, was erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles or in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
B. The punishment of each sentence (Defendant B: a fine of two million won, Defendant A: a fine of three million won) declared by the lower court against the Defendants is too uneased and unreasonable.
2. Judgment on the misapprehension of the legal principle or mistake of facts
A. On August 30, 2014, the Defendants: (a) around the convenience store located in U.S. Dongdong-gu, U.S. around 06:43, and (b) on the ground that Defendant B had snowed with the victim F; (c) walked the victim with the string of the string of the string of the string of the string of the string of the string of the string of the string of the string of the string of the string of the string of the string of the 2014, and distributed the string of the string of the string of the string of the string of the string of the string of the 2014 charges; and (d) Defendant A saw the string of the string of the strings
As a result, the defendants stolen the victim's property together.
B. The lower court’s judgment is based on the legal doctrine that, in order to establish a special larceny as a joint criminal of the latter part of Article 331(2) of the Criminal Act, there is a need to share the act of conspiracy as a subjective element and the act of implementation as an objective requirement, and that there is a cooperative relationship at a time and place in the act of implementation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Do313, Mar. 22, 1996) against the Defendants for the following reasons.