beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
Reasons
1. According to the summary of the grounds of appeal, the police statement of the victim E (hereinafter “victim”) and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, such as CCTV images installed near the place where the instant crime was committed, it is reasonable to view that A was aware that, in full view of these circumstances, the Defendant was aware that the damaged goods would result in the Defendant’s damage against another’s will, as well as the Defendant was sealed in the tape at the time, at the time, sealed in the 400,000 won of the market value of the stolen victim’s ownership (hereinafter “victimd goods”). The Defendant was not only her back, but also her her back, but also her back actively, and the Defendant was her her head, with the damaged goods, and it was confirmed that the Defendant directly reported the damaged goods to A and talked with the damaged goods.
Nevertheless, the defendant was aware in advance that A has stolen another person's goods at the time.
The judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge the fact that the damaged article or the damaged article was occupied by another person, and there is an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles
2. Determination:
A. A around 09:40 on December 27, 201, the summary of the facts charged is as follows: (a) A was aiding and abetting the crime of A by easily carrying damaged items owned by the victim that A stolen while he/she moved together with the victim of his/her name and was collecting his/her abolition, etc. while he/she was leading the ria in the vicinity of Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “the place of the crime of this case”).
B. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court of the lower judgment, the lower court determined that the Defendant committed the instant crime, i.e., (a) by suggesting that a person who was unable to receive a statement from an investigative agency would drink alcoholic beverages by drinking water; and (b) bringing Laka and abolished it together with the Defendant.