beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 10,000,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
Reasons
【Judgment on Grounds for Appeal】
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the portion of the non-guilty (a thief with a deadly weapon) on the ground of its assertion of the misapprehension of the legal doctrine by the prosecutor, which was produced for destruction by itself, and even if it is difficult to regard it as a destructive purpose, the form of which was not modified, and thereby does not constitute a deadly weapon under Article 331(2) of the Criminal Act, by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding a deadly weapon under Article 331(2) of the Criminal Act.
B. As to the lower court’s argument of unfair sentencing (two months of imprisonment, confiscation) by both parties, the Defendant is too unlimited and unfair, and the prosecutor is deemed to have excessively uncomfortable and unfair.
2. Judgment on the misapprehension of the legal principle by the prosecutor
A. On May 26, 2013, at around 12:30 on May 26, 2013, the Defendant: (a) cut off the locks using a cutting machine (the length 35 cm) that is a dangerous object in advance prepared for the victim E-ownership of the victim, which was set up in the D Library located in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, and was cut off.
B. The judgment of the court below held that the cutting of this case constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime, while the form of the cutting in this case constitutes a general cutting of 9.5 cm wide and 38 cm wide (Evidence No. 116) and the use of it was not changed (Evidence No. 124-5). Since the method of the defendant's use was also put in a locker in front of the bicycle in the location of the drone, it cannot be viewed as a deadly weapon for the purpose of destruction (Evidence No. 124-5) and then, it cannot be viewed as a deadly weapon for the purpose of destruction. The above facts charged with the use of the cutting in this case constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime, but it is recognized as a part of the constituent elements
C. The Criminal Act clearly defines deadly weapons and dangerous objects as the judgment of the competent court.