beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. When a judgment of mistake of facts was rendered, the crime described in paragraph (1) of the crime is a single crime committed by the defendant, not a crime committed jointly with C.
B. The imprisonment imposed by the lower court (two years of imprisonment) is too heavy.
2. Determination:
A. The following facts are acknowledged by each evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in determining the assertion of mistake of facts: ① all the facts of this case including the crime listed in paragraph (1) of the original trial at the court below; ② at the investigative agency, C made a statement that the defendant had taken advantage of the network at the time of theft as stated in paragraph (1) of the crime at the time of original trial; ③ in combination with Co-defendant C of the court below at the time of the above crime, the fact that the defendant stolen Nowon and wall as described in paragraph (1) of the criminal facts at the time of original trial can be sufficiently recognized, in full view of the CCTV screen (the investigation record No. 10 pages) bearing the appearance of the defendant and C at the time of the above crime.
B. The defendant's decision on the assertion of unfair sentencing does not repeat the crime; the victim F does not want the defendant's punishment; and the profit actually earned by the defendant from the crime of this case does not reach the amount of damage to the crime of this case at the original trial, even though it is recognized that the defendant had been punished several times for the same kind of crime, such as the initial statement of the crime at the time of original trial; in particular, the defendant committed another crime during the period of repeated crime of this case; the victim F does not recover from damage to the other victims except the victim F until the trial; according to the sentencing guidelines set by the Supreme Court's sentencing guidelines set by the sentencing committee, the scope of the recommendation of this case is within 2 to 4 years, according to the sentencing guidelines set by the Supreme Court's sentencing committee (the number of punishment of this case is 1).