beta
Text
The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.
Reasons
1. On December 7, 2014, the Defendant: (a) around 18:55 on December 18, 2014, at the 4th towing room of the Magdong, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, the Defendant opened one bank passbook, the victim D, and one bank passbook on the floor, the market price of which includes cash cards, and continued to d's hand, while displaying things to be stolen, the Defendant attempted to do so with the wind coming into the above towing room of the victim, who was aware of the victim, while displaying the things to be stolen by placing the hand on the outside Raditer owned by the victim on the Raditer; and (b) the victim took one time at the left face of the victim with the intention of evading arrest of the victim who was unable to flee, and the victim took the victim’s wall of the victim, “I am sphere and sphere the victim’s head by driving up to the end of width.” (c) The victim suffers from the victim’s wall.
2. The gist of the prosecution by the defendant and his defense counsel;
A. The Defendant entered the education hall in the above church because of a sudden change, and entered the above wedding room to take wals found while reporting the crusium, and did not change the victim's bank or external input.
B. The Defendant, by misunderstanding the victim as a larceny, did not commit violence against the victim, and even if he did not commit assault against the victim.
The act constitutes self-defense or legitimate act.
3. Determination
A. (1) Whether the charge of attempted robbery is recognized or not) The prosecutor bears the burden of proving the criminal facts charged in a criminal trial, and the conviction should be based on strict evidence with probative value, which leads to the conviction of a judge to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt that the facts charged are true. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, even if there is suspicion of guilt against the defendant, it cannot be determined as the benefit of the defendant.
Supreme Court Decision 201No. 201.