beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and two months.
Reasons
1. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case and the summary of the facts charged by the lower court are as follows: (a) on September 25, 2013, the Defendant entered the “E” mobile phone store operated by the victim D (hereinafter “instant store”) in Ansan-si around 22:20 on September 25, 2013, and stolen one of the “gallon No. 1” among the “gallon No. 1” (hereinafter “instant 1 smartphone”); and (b) continuously intruded into the said store at around 07:08 on the following day, the Defendant stolen one of the “gallon No. 1” among the “gallon No. 1” (hereinafter “instant 2 smartphone”) and one of the “gallon No. 2” of the “gallon No. 3 smartphone.” (hereinafter “instant 3 smartphone”).
On the other hand, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the theft of the instant 2 smartphone and intrusion on the instant store around 07:08 on September 26, 2013, and found the Defendant guilty of the theft of the instant 1 and 3 smartphones, on the ground that it is not sufficient to acknowledge the Defendant guilty only by the witness D’s legal statement and internal investigation report (CCTV image analysis) with respect to the theft of the instant 1 and 3 smartphones, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and that the Defendant was cited in the lux hand around 07:08 on September 26, 2013, not the instant 3 smartphones, but on the ground that it is highly probable to be the gallon No. 1.
2. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Although the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the theft of the instant Nos. 1 and 3 smartphones, in light of objective evidence, such as the victim’s statement from the investigative agency to the lower court’s court, the Defendant’s statement is consistent from the investigative agency to the lower court, on the other hand, difficult to believe that the Defendant’s statement has been reversed continuously, and the Defendant’s account book prepared by the victim, and CCTV images of the instant store, the
Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant.
B. Defendant 1’s misapprehension of the legal doctrine is a special larceny around 2006.