beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In order to find the PC room, the Defendant did not have a PC back to the alley where the victim’s house was located, and had an intrusion upon the victim’s residence and stolen the property owned by the victim, but the lower court convicted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case by misunderstanding the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts
A. The summary of the facts charged [criminal record] The defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes at the Daejeon District Court on November 30, 2004; three years for the same crime in the same court on January 24, 2008; on September 1, 2011, the Daejeon District Court sentenced imprisonment with prison labor for not less than three years for the same crime; and on April 27, 2015, the execution of the above punishment was completed and is currently under repeated period.
[2] On March 2, 2017, between around 19:11 and around 19:36, the Defendant intruded into the victim’s house at the victim’s house A Dong 101, and through the unlocked kitchen window, and went to the victim’s house at the same time, the Defendant 1,4 million won of the market price of the victim’s house at which the inside balp and the balp were in the front line, and 1,18 K balp 1,1,18 K balp 1,18 K balp 1,18 K balp balp 1,18 K Ga, and 4.1,18 K Da 1,18 K son’s 1,18 K malp malp 1,18 K malp 1,8 K malp 1,141,14
As a result, the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment more than three times due to larceny, etc., and again intruded into the victim's residence at night during the repeated crime period, and stolen the victim's property worth KRW 18.1 million in total.
B. The probative value of conviction in a criminal trial of the relevant legal doctrine can lead a judge to have a conviction that the facts charged are true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt.