beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding the facts) shows that there was an error in the results of a factual inquiry conducted by the court below on the Korean Electronic Financial Co., Ltd., and that the defendant had a close relationship with the victim, the defendant stolen the cash of the victim.
Nevertheless, the court below rendered a not guilty verdict on the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. On July 20, 2015, the Defendant withdrawn 250,000 won in cash deposited in the victim’s bank account using the victim’s cash card, which was held in front of D Mart located in Bupyeong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, in an unsound manner, from July 20, 2015, and stolen the Defendant.
B. The lower court’s judgment: ① (a) the details of transactions conducted from around 08:20 on July 20, 2015 to around 08:25 during the period of cash withdrawal from around 08:25 at the victim’s account were 2 cases of checking the balance of 08:2/10 on the victim’s account and cash payment of KRW 08:23 to 250,000; and (b) the photographs taken from the above perspective (as a result of factual inquiries about the Korean Electronic Finance Co., Ltd. by the lower court on December 21, 2015) are different from the evidentiary pictures attached to the investigation record, and thus, the same person on each of the above pictures cannot be seen as the same person; and (c) the documents submitted to the investigation agency were submitted.
D) In full view of the fact that the CCTV photograph files of the front cash withdrawal machine are three, and the two files were taken on July 20, 2015, and the remainder was taken on July 20, 2015, and the remainder was taken on the portion of 08:22 (No. 96022:22 20150720-00017 00). The evidence attached to the investigation record cannot be readily deemed as the photograph taken on the date indicated in the facts charged of this case, and rather, it is possible that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor was taken on the same day, and that the Defendant was stolen money by using the victim’s card at the time and place specified in the facts charged of this case.