beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Although the Defendant was aware of the fact that there was no purchaser, misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, the Defendant believed that E, H, and G were to make an appraisal and re-influence outside of a locking season, and that it was merely a flusent and bad faith, and there was no intention to commit theft and there was no criminal intent to commit theft.
Therefore, the facts charged in this case cannot be applied to special larceny, regardless of whether it is against fraud or embezzlement. However, the court below admitted the suspect interrogation protocol of accomplice E who has no admissibility of evidence as evidence of guilt because the defendant's cross-examination right is not guaranteed, thereby recognizing the defendant as a special larceny. The court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles due to the violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of legal principles
B. In view of the fact that the defendant reflects the error of unfair sentencing, and that the defendant has contributed to the arrest of accomplice E by cooperating with the investigation, the sentence imposed by the court below (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. (1) The judgment of the court below also asserted the same purport as the above grounds for appeal, and the court below rejected the above assertion on the following grounds: even if all the circumstances alleged by the defendant, including the defendant's statement, are considered in the investigation agency, the defendant excluded possession of the case against the victim's will by forming a cooperative relationship with E, H, G, time, and location at the scene of the crime of this case, and transferred it to himself or a third party's possession, and the defendant's awareness of such fact and intent of unlawful acquisition are all recognized.
(2) On the other hand, a theft under the relevant legal doctrine refers to the transfer of the object owned by a person other than himself/herself or a third party from his/her possession against the possessor's will to the exclusion of the possession.
And theft.