beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Error 1) As to the larceny portion, the Defendant did not have stolen cash KRW 40,00 and passbook from the victim’s bank, and the victim requested to withdraw money from the said passbook with the victim’s request, and only distributed money to the victim upon the victim’s request. 2) As to the larceny portion, the Defendant only borrowed KRW 1 million from the victim (one check) around October 18, 2016, and there was no money borrowed from the victim on November 1, 2016.
In addition, since the defendant had an income of KRW 1 million per month at the time, he had an intention or ability to repay the above borrowed money.
B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (7 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. 1) In light of the relevant legal principles and the principle of court-oriented trials, etc., comprehensively considering the results of the examination of evidence in the first instance trial and the results of additional examination of evidence conducted until the closing of argument in the appellate trial, the appellate court should not reverse without permission the first instance court's decision on the credibility of the statement made by the witness in the first instance unless there are exceptional cases where it is deemed that maintaining the first instance court's decision on the credibility of the statement made by the witness in the first instance is significantly unfair (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do14409, Feb. 25, 2010). 2) The Defendant alleged that the judgment on the larceny portion is the same as the grounds for appeal in this part, and the lower court rejected the Defendant's assertion in detail and convicted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged.
The following facts or circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the court below, that is, the defendant requested the return of the passbook, so that the victim could not be seen as tearing the details of the relevant part of the passbook transaction, and returned.