The case holding that there is insufficient proof of robbery reserve

The case holding that there is insufficient proof of robbery reserve

Article 343 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Defendant

Incheon District Court Decision 89No575 delivered on August 24, 1989

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Incheon District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the first instance judgment, the first instance court rejected the Defendant’s grounds of appeal alleging mistake of facts on the grounds that the Defendant could recognize the Defendant’s potential crime of robbery, on March 23, 1989, on the ground that the first instance court rejected the Defendant’s grounds of appeal alleging mistake of facts on the ground that: (a) around 01:15 on March 23, 1989, the Defendant was carrying one knife knife (26 centimeters in length) in a bank for robbery in the Cheongcheon-dong, Incheon-gu, Incheon; and (b) 50 knife and knife the Defendant’s object of crime; and (c) the Defendant did not come to the commencement of the execution

Examining the records of the case, the defendant denies the fact that the defendant continued to robbery until the police, the prosecutor's office, the first instance court, and the lower court, and even after examining the evidence cited by the first instance court, it is only recognized that the defendant, while carrying a knife with the knife at the date and time of the decision, was loaded with the knife and knife, and attached to the knife

In addition, according to the seizure protocol, it is recognized that the defendant was in possession of the defendant at the time not only one knife knife, swine storage machine, cash, women's side knife, male and shower, etc., as well as two knife knife knife, and the record reveals that the defendant was in possession of the defendant at the time, and that the defendant was in possession of the defendant (the defendant's own writing).

Therefore, in light of the above various circumstances, it is difficult to deem that there was proof to the extent that there was no reasonable doubt that the defendant had been prepared to robbery with only the timely evidence of the first instance judgment, which is not recognized as only the fact that the defendant gets off the above bags at night and gets off the Otoba, and failed to comply with the check by the crime prevention guards, and that there was evidence to the extent that there was no reasonable doubt.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in finding facts against the rules of evidence, and it affects the judgment.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)