beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The defendant shall be innocent.
Reasons
The summary of the grounds for appeal (Misunderstanding and misunderstanding of legal principles) is that the defendant would request the sale of the Obane in this case, so there was no intention of larceny or illegal acquisition.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant is erroneous in misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles.
2. Determination
A. On December 22, 2018, the Defendant: (a) around 10:15, at the 10:15th underground parking lot of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul, Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the Defendant: (b) laid off the first floor of B apartment; (c) at the market price owned by the injured party CT100 Oraba, which was parked in an exclusive parking lot; and (d) by compulsorily drawing up one distribution cable and driving it by driving it.
B. As to the facts charged in this case, the lower court found the Defendant and the victim guilty on the part of their respective legal statements, investigation reports (F counterpart investigation of the “E”), access roads, and tracking data as to the escape route, and photographs of the features of the Otobba, as evidence.
C. The judgment of this court 1) In a criminal trial, criminal facts ought to be established based on strict evidence with probative value, which makes a judge not to have any reasonable doubt. Thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof does not sufficiently reach the degree to have the aforementioned conviction, even if there is suspicion of guilt, such as the defendant’s assertion or defense contradictory or uncomfortable dismissal, it should be determined in the interest of the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2010Do1487, Apr. 28, 201; 2012Do3722, Sept. 26, 2013). 2) In full view of the following facts and circumstances, which are determined by the evidence duly adopted by the court below and examined by the court below, it is insufficient to conclude that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone had the intent to commit the larceny or unlawful acquisition of the instant facts against the Defendant. Therefore, it is unreasonable to deem that the Defendant had the intent to commit the instant criminal facts.