beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Fact-finding 1) On February 28, 2018, around 14:00, in the main fact managed by the victim D in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Gangnam-gu, Seoul. However, in the event that a toilet was rapidly suspended, it was only a string on the face of a string, and there was no intention of larceny. 2) On August 28, 2018, around 18:00, there was no fact that a 10,000 won in cash was stolen by opening a door of a vehicle which was not corrected at the second floor parking lot of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government J-gu Seoul, Seoul.
B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts: the defendant, without any permission, intruded into the main facts of the above C, and opened the west and discovered it to the nurse who entered the main facts while examining the proposal; the defendant has been in a toilet to the nurse; and the defendant went out of the hospital and went out of the hospital; the above C's expenses were caused to go out of the hospital; the defendant immediately stolen property, and the defendant immediately intruded into the apartment in the neighboring area; the defendant immediately stolen the property; the defendant removed the crime prevention window in the neighboring area; the defendant, after coming out of the above apartment; the defendant again opened the door of the vehicle that was not locked from the parking lot of the above "H building" (the 20,000 won, etc., "H building" as stated in the judgment of the court below) in light of the following circumstances, the defendant's assertion that the above defendant had no intention to open the CCTV in the nearby parking lot and the CCTV's allegation that he could be sufficiently recognized from the CCTV.
B. The Defendant again committed the instant crime even though he/she had a number of records of the same sentence, and the lower property is the subject of judgment on the allegation of unfair sentencing.