beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal E and F voluntarily stated in an investigative agency that they sold a stolen mobile phone to the defendant, and the details of the sales or the situation at the time are consistent with each other. On the other hand, E and F stated in the original court that they first sold a stolen mobile phone to the defendant, but they did not sell a stolen mobile phone to the defendant who was asked by the defense counsel. In light of EF’s statement behavior, the statement made in an investigative agency is more reliable than the statement made in the original court.
In addition, E/F under investigation of perjury in the court below's testimony made in the court below's trial, so that they did not sell a stolen mobile phone to the defendant in the court below's decision that they were false, the statement made in the investigation agency is true, and there is no reason to make a false statement even after E/F is punished for perjury.
Therefore, the court below acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case even though E/F has credibility of the statement made by the investigative agency, and the Defendant’s statement cannot be trusted. Thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination E, from January 2014 to March 2015, it was true that it stolen a mobile phone with F along with F and sold it to the Defendant who operates D from Daegu Jung-gu, Seoul.
In addition, according to the record, E, F did not sell a stolen mobile phone to the defendant at the court of original instance.
In relation to the statement "I" made by the Prosecutor's Office in Daegu District Prosecutors' Office No. 706, which was investigated as a charge of perjury, and the statement to the same effect at the court below was made by the court below is false, and it stated that the defendant was sold a stolen cell phone to the defendant as stated in the investigation agency. However, F, at the court of first instance, steals with E in the prosecutor's question at the court of first instance.