beta
Text
Defendant
F The appeal against F and the Prosecutor’s Defendant G are all dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant F (1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (A) added the location of the oil pipeline to B for the larceny of oil in the oil pipeline, but, after doing so, the Defendant F stated that B would waive it because it is extremely difficult and impossible for B to commit the larceny of oil in the oil pipeline while holding his action, and that B would also have renounced it, and there was no fact that B did not receive any consideration from B, etc., and there was no conspiracy to commit the instant crime in light of the fact that B, etc. and there was no conspiracy to commit the instant crime, and even if it was acknowledged that there was a conspiracy to commit the instant crime, Defendant F would not be liable for the other co-principal's act, since he escaped from the conspiracy relationship before the commission of the crime.
(B) The facts that Defendant F informed Defendant F of the thief in B’s thief and stated false facts in bad faith as to Defendant F at the time of the prosecutor’s investigation, and the prosecutor’s investigation and the statement in the court of original instance are contrary to and consistent, and thus, cannot be believed.
(2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. The prosecutor (Defendant G) (1) stated that Defendant G used equipment necessary to prevent oil from oil pipelines to himself/herself. On October 201, 201, Defendant G stated that Defendant G used to repair valves from the oil pipeline to the oil pipeline in the Anstostostostones in the vicinity of the Geumsan, and that the process of drilling the valves on the oil pipeline was cut down and explained to the police officer. On December 2011, Defendant G informed Defendant G of the location of the oil pipeline at the same time while passing on an expressway, and Defendant G made a consistent statement from the investigative agency to the court. B also stated that Defendant G was s to have been stoved from Defendant G, and that there was no reason such as that A made a false statement unfavorable to Defendant G, and thus, A’s statement is sufficient trust.
(2) An aiding and abetting act is committed.