beta
Text
All the judgment of the court below against the Defendants (including the acquittal part for each reason) shall be reversed.
Defendant
A shall be sentenced to four years of imprisonment;
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A (A) Habitual special larcenys. A) Defendant A’s habitually stolen goods related to the crime No. 8 of the List of Crimes No. 14 disease and merchandise coupon No. 50,000 won are merely 14 disease and merchandise coupon No. 50,000 won, and there was no theft of KRW 2 million in cash, precious metals, etc.
Nevertheless, the lower court determined that Defendant A stolen all of KRW 2 million in cash owned by Victim K, KRW 5 precious metal equivalent to a total of KRW 3.76 million in the market value, KRW 14 disease in the market value, and KRW 300,000 in total.
Therefore, this part of the judgment of the court below has affected the conclusion of the judgment due to mistake of facts.
B) Defendant A was guilty of attempted quasi-special robbery and did not have a knife with the victim for the purpose of evading arrest. However, the lower court determined that Defendant A used the victim with a knife while carrying the knife. Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment. 2) In so doing, the lower court’s judgment on the allegation of unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. Defendant B’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts is merely that Defendant B was born to Defendant A’s taxi destination to punish taxi expenses from Defendant A, and there was no conspiracy between Defendant A and thief. Even if Defendant B’s act was committed, it is merely aiding and abetting Defendant B’s act. Nevertheless, the lower court convicted Defendant B of this part of the facts charged against Defendant B on the ground that Defendant B conspired with Defendant A and habitually committed each of the larceny crimes of this case. Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and thus, the lower court’s judgment that found unfair sentencing (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Determination of the misunderstanding of facts by Defendant A 1 habitually special larceny.