Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Mawalton

Attorney Kim Jong-soo

Chuncheon District Court Decision 2006Ma283, 2006Ma297 decided Oct. 19, 2006

Of the judgment below, the part on Defendant 2 shall be reversed.

Defendant 2 shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

62 days of detention before pronouncement of the judgment below shall be included in the above sentence.

except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Defendant 1’s appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1

Considering that the defendant's mistake is deeply divided, the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant 2

(1) misunderstanding of facts

Despite the fact that the defendant was found guilty on a different premise, the court below erred by misunderstanding the fact that the defendant was guilty on a different premise, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) Unreasonable sentencing

Considering the fact that the defendant is deeply divided into his mistake and that there is a mother that the defendant should support, the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Defendant 2

(1) misunderstanding of facts

According to the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below, the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the court below are sufficiently recognized, and the defendant's assertion is without merit.

2) Ex officio determination

Before the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing, the above Defendant stated that “the facts of prosecution are different from the facts” as to the prosecutor’s examination of the facts charged in this case on the first day of the original trial of the lower court. However, Defendant 1’s cross-examination of the defense counsel does not know what Defendant 1 1 flurged with, and flurged about, brain flurd with, the Defendant at a later accommodation, thereby allowing Defendant 1 to cans and drink six roots level.” This is the argument that the Defendant was aware of his drinking as wild drug, and that he was unaware of flurged with, a property belonging to another person. As such, the part of the facts charged in this case’s charges does not constitute “when a confession was made about the facts charged in the courtroom,” and thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the evidence of the Defendant’s testimony in the judgment of the lower court, or by failing to admit the remainder of the facts charged as evidence in violation of Article 286-2 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

B. Defendant 1

Defendant 1 has already been punished twice for the same kind of crime and did not reach an agreement with the victims of the crime of larceny and the victims of the crime of larceny, in consideration of various circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the court below cannot be deemed unfair because it is too unreasonable. Thus, there is no reason to discuss the appeal of unfair sentencing.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, pursuant to Article 364(2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the part against Defendant 2 among the judgment below is reversed, and it is again decided after pleading as follows. Defendant 1’s appeal is without merit. Thus, it is dismissed pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, it is decided as per Disposition by correcting “ August 16, 2006” of criminal facts No. 6 of the judgment of the court below as “ August 18, 2006.”

The criminal facts against Defendant 2 recognized by this court are the same as the corresponding column of the judgment of the court below, and such criminal facts are cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

1. The original judgment and each legal statement of the party branch of the defendant;

1. Examination protocol of the accused by prosecution;

1. An interrogation protocol on Defendant 1 by the prosecution;

1. The police statement of the Nonindicted Party

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Article 362 (Selection of Imprisonment)

1. Inclusion of days of detention in detention;

Article 57 of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (In light of the fact that the defendant reflects his mistake and the amount of stolens acquired by the defendant is relatively minor)

Judges Kim Hong-do (Presiding Judge) Kim Yang-hun et al.