beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of appeal (misunderstanding of facts) was that the Defendants merely told “the victim’s house was stolen if necessary because money was large.” While the Defendants’ statement about the Defendants informed N of the password at the time was inconsistent with the empirical rule, the Defendants’ statement was in an important part, and the N and the victim’s statement was consistent with the investigation agency to the lower court’s court to the effect that there was no particular reason to make a false statement, according to N and the victim’s statement, etc., the Defendants could sufficiently recognize the fact that they stolen the victim’s property in collusion with N in collusion with N.
2. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendants were employed by the security service company with the victim M (36 tax) and the Defendants and N had been aware that they had been on duty before and after the workplace.
During the period from January 19, 2012 to January 21, 2012, the Defendants were drinking together with N in the mutual infabar “Bar” located in the inner world of Ansan-si from January 19 to January 21, 2012, Defendant A intended to have the Defendant B and N receive a large amount of cash in the victim’s M’s residence, so as to have the Defendant B and N divide the money by taking the victim’s theft.
On January 23, 2012, N proposed to commit a crime, and it is necessary to cut off the amount of KRW 80,000 by Internet gambling, and the N notified the victim of his/her intention to steals money, and hear from Defendant A the location of the victim’s residence, and ultimately, the Defendants conspired to steals N and the victim’s money by transferring the victim’s front door and secret number from Defendant B.
Accordingly, N intruded on January 23, 2012 in the residence of the victim No. 101-dong 803, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, 19:45 on January 23, 2012 and carried cash of KRW 225 million and KRW 5 million in the treasury.
Accordingly, the Defendants committed a theft of the victim's property in collusion with N.
3. On January 2, 2012, the lower court determined by the lower court.