beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Prosecutor 1) In fact, there exists reinforced evidence on the larceny of around 02:30 on March 4, 2015, on which the lower court rendered a not-guilty verdict. Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, on the grounds that there was no corroborative evidence. 2) The sentence imposed by the lower court of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable and unreasonable.
B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below on the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the court below’s judgment that acquitted the defendant of this part of the facts charged is just and it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, on March 4, 2015, since the confession of the defendant was the only evidence as to the larceny around March 4, 2015.
Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.
1) The video images of the crime preventionCCTV and the CCTV image merely relate to the crimes listed in No. 10 in the list of crimes as indicated in the lower judgment. As such, each of the above evidence cannot be deemed as evidence of the above charges charged for concurrent crimes. 2) On-site verification video (in a case where the content of the on-site verification video refers to the place where the vehicle recorded in the facts charged was parked on the basis of the confession of the Defendant, and the content of the video refers to the place where the vehicle recorded in the above facts charged was parked on the basis of the confession of the Defendant, which would eventually result in strengthening the confession of the Defendant as the confession of the Defendant, and thus, the above evidence cannot be deemed as evidence of the confession
3. The prosecutor does not specify at all the damaged vehicle that is the object of the crime in this part of the facts charged, and there are evidence to specify 4,000 won in the case of damaged goods.