beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In fact, the Defendant: (a) Co-Defendant B, a co-defendant of the court below, cut the lock lock device for the bicycle owned by the victim and led it to the process; and (b) did not share the act of commission, such as gathering the lock device for the thief, or viewing the network around when he cut off the lock lock device; and (c) therefore, the Defendant did not commit larceny in collaboration with B as stated in the facts of the crime in the judgment below.
B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, two years of protection observation, and 120 hours of community service) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, that is, the defendant went to a bicycle storage room as stated in the judgment of the court below together with the co-defendant B, and he was in charge of taking the scambling machine from H, and he was in the same manner B took the scambling machine from H, and he returned to the bicycle storage yard with the b with the scam cutting machine, and even when B took the scambling machine, he was in front of the scambling machine, and even when B took the above scambs together with B, it can be sufficiently recognized that "the defendant taken the scambs together with B as stated in the facts charged in the judgment of the court below (the defendant led to the confession of the facts charged in the judgment of the court below). Accordingly, the above assertion by the defendant is without merit.
B. As to the wrongful assertion of sentencing, 1) The value of the stolen goods is not significant, and the fact that the stolen goods have been returned after the victim is recognized.
2) However, the defendant did not appear to have the attitude of denying the fact of crime due to a vindication that is not persuasive, and the defendant was subject to the suspension of indictment due to the fact that he stolen his bicycle even before, and there was a history of being sentenced to a fine twice due to larceny.