상습절도등
All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four years.
An application for compensation order by an applicant for compensation.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. According to the prosecutor's appellate brief's statement of high credibility of the victim AY and on-site dispatch police officers, the court below acquitted the defendant on the ground that the defendant did not have direct evidence about the defendant's theft crime, and found the defendant not guilty on the ground that he did not have direct evidence about the defendant's theft crime.
B. The grounds for appeal by the Defendant and the prosecutor against the second judgment of the lower court (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for not less than four months) are too heavy or too unfasible (the Defendant).
2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant and prosecutor ex officio.
The judgment of the court below against which the defendant and the prosecutor filed an appeal was held concurrently and tried at the trial, and the prosecutor added the facts as stated in the attached Table No. 2 through No. 23 to the charge of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes in the trial, and the application for the amendment of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes in the attached Table No. 1284, Nov. 19, 2014, and the thief in July 30, 2014, and added them to the subject of the judgment by this court.
In addition, in the trial of the party, the prosecutor changed the name of the criminal defendant against the larceny from the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes to the habitual larceny, withdrawal of Article 5-4 (6) and (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes in the applicable provisions of the Act and the addition of Article 332 of the Criminal Act to the application for changes in indictment filed by the court on March 25, 2015
However, the criminal facts of each of the above cases against the defendant are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, one of the judgment below against the defendant cannot be maintained any more.
except that prosecutor.