beta
Text
The judgment below
Among the Defendants, the part of the acquittal on the Defendants’ attempted attack at around 18:22 on June 22, 2018 is reversed.
(e).
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The judgment of the court below on erroneous facts (as to the attempted crimes against the Defendants among the facts charged in this case), as to the Defendants’ attempted crimes of conspiracy (as to the attempted crimes of conspiracy on June 22, 2018, around 18:22, around the same day, around 18:57, and around 19:27 on the same day) prosecuted by the co-principal, the whole acquittal of the Defendants B, and the acquittal of the Defendants A as to the attempted crimes of conspiracy on June 22, 2018, on June 22, 2018, on the other hand, on the charge of attempted crimes of conspiracy at around 18:57 and around 19:27 on the same day, the judgment below acknowledged the Defendant’s single criminal conduct without any changes in the indictment, and did not declare the acquittal of the grounds for the co-principal.
According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it is recognized that there was a conspiracy between the Defendants on the crime of robbery, and that the Defendants committed the crime of attempted robbery around June 18:22, 2018 by starting the commission of the crime of robbery according to the conspiracy.
In addition, as long as the Defendants commenced the commission of the criminal conduct following the conspiracy, even if Defendant B escaped from the criminal scene after the crime was committed on June 22, 2018, Defendant B constituted a joint principal offender with respect to the crime committed through the attempted crime at around 18:57 and around 19:27 on June 22, 2018.
Nevertheless, among the facts charged against the Defendants, Defendant A’s sole criminal offense is recognized only for attempted attack around June 22, 2018 and around 19:57 around June 22, 2018 and around 19:27; Defendant A’s attempted attack around June 22, 2018 and Defendant B not guilty of the charges. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.
B. The lower court’s imprisonment (one year of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is too uneasible and unfair.
2. The prosecutor’s ex officio determination following the amendment of indictment was made at the trial of the case, and used “the Defendant’s attempted to proceed to the public prosecution at around 18:22 on June 22, 2018” (Article 1-A(a) of the facts charged in the indictment) as follows.