beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
According to the summary of the grounds for appeal (fact-finding and misunderstanding of legal principles), the U.S. air conditioners and three (3) air conditioners (hereinafter “the instant air conditioners”) were located at the entrance of the studio building, the victim purchased the said air conditioners to have them used by the members of the studio household, the Defendant knew that he should report the said air conditioners to the competent local government at the time of dumping the studio, and the Defendant stated that the air conditioners of the instant air conditioners did not attached the budio, etc., the lower court determined otherwise, even if the Defendant was aware of the willful negligence of larceny and the intention of larceny, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the mistake of facts and the intent of larceny.
Judgment
In the relevant legal principles, the burden of proof for the facts constituting an offense prosecuted in the criminal trial is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction is to be based on the evidence of probative value that makes the judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, the defendant is suspected of guilt even if there is no such evidence.
Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2009Do1151, Jul. 22, 2010; 2006Do1713, May 26, 2006). Comprehensively taking account of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the trial court, the possibility that the Defendant believed that the owner of the air conditioners of this case was abandoned is the owner of the air conditioners cannot be ruled out.
In addition, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that the defendant had had intention to larceny at the time, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.
The prosecutor's assertion is without merit.
From 16:50 to 17:12, the Defendant’s view of bringing the cooling house of this case was 16:50 to 17:12, and the location where the said cooling house was located is inside the studio building.