The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that the judgment of conviction against the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (thief) was committed by misunderstanding evidence

The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that the judgment of conviction against the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (thief) was committed by misunderstanding evidence

Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 329 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Park Jong-young

Gwangju High Court Decision 89No716 delivered on May 3, 1990

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

We examine the Defendant’s grounds of appeal.

The lower court affirmed the first instance judgment that recognized that the Defendant stolen the gold booming amounting to KRW 264,000 at one market price of one gold booming, which was affected by each item in the order of the injured party’s wellbeing at the place indicated in the judgment around 14:00 on July 1, 199.

However, upon examining the records, the most important evidence of the above fact-finding among the evidence of the first instance judgment reveals that the witness is the non-indicted who was witness, and the victim's statement in the order of peace. The above completed police and the prosecutor's office asked the victim who was about 45 years old at the time and at the time and place of the lower court's trial to cut down, and then asked the victim to see that the defendant was cut down, and then notified the victim of the fact that the above victim was found about 45 years old and the above victim was found from the non-indicted police officer, and the police officer also stated that the above 45 years old and the above 45 years old and the above 45 years old and the above 45 years old were good while finding the thmbs that the above thms were lost. However, according to the record of the judicial police officer's statement on the order of peace, the victim was found to have completed the above 37 years old and the above thmbs of the victim's own statement without being known of the victim's age.

In addition, even after examining the evidence of employment in the first instance court, there is no evidence to acknowledge the thief crime against the above victim's emotional order, so the above criminal facts do not lead to the absence of proof of the crime.

In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed and remanded, with the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal, since there is an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding evidence judgment, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice) Lee Jong-won (Presiding Justice)