beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
Summary of Grounds for Appeal
In full view of the statement of the complainant and the defendant, sales contract, and mergator's name, the fact that the number of trees kept by the defendant is 157. The complainants consistently stated at least 26 weeks in the investigation into the quality of the trees embezzled by the defendant. As such, the quantity of the trees kept by the defendant and the quantity of the trees embezzled by the defendant are specified.
The complainant stated that around June 2016, around 2016, the trees stored in C operated by the Defendant were 50 weeks. around September 20, 2016, the complainant confirmed that around October 2016, the 10 share of trees owned by the complainant was destroyed by C, but around March 2017, the complainant confirmed that the 10 share of trees owned by the complainant was in front of C, but the 4 share was destroyed by March 2017, the Defendant sold 5 share of bank trees to E, and that in order to purchase trees from G, the J stated that the 5 share of trees was known to the complainant, and that the 5 share of trees was known to the complainant, and that the 2,4006 share of trees sold to G (Evidence No. 24 of the evidence record) is not one of its own trees, it is recognized that the Defendant arbitrarily disposed of them, even though being aware that it was not a tree owned by the complainant.
Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, on the grounds that the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged.
2. In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, it is difficult to view that the Defendant, as the charged in the instant case, embezzled 26 shares of bank trees while keeping 157 shares owned by the complainants, to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is just, and the prosecutor’s above assertion is without merit.
around June 2016, the complainant kept bank trees, etc. in C operated by the defendant with the introduction of G, and G.