beta
Text
The judgment of the first instance is reversed.
Defendant
A Imprisonment with prison labor for five years and for one year and six months, respectively.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is unreasonable because the first instance court sentenced the defendants to the punishment (for the defendant A: 6 years of imprisonment, and for the defendant B 2 years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. An ex officio determination prosecutor is subject to the first-class judgment among the previous facts charged.
subsection (e) below.
In addition, the contents of the paragraph are added, and the following, the Defendants made an application for permission to amend the bill of amendment to the effect that “the Defendants conspired and habitually stolen another’s property four times as above,” “The Defendants conspired and habitually stolen another’s property at the same five times as above.” Since this court permitted it and changed the subject of the judgment, the judgment of the first instance was no longer maintained.
3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court of first instance is reversed pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the Defendants’ assertion of unfair sentencing on the grounds of ex officio reversal, and it is again decided as follows.
Criminal facts
The facts constituting the crime recognized by this court are set forth in Article 1-D among the facts constituting the judgment of the court of first instance.
In addition, at around 12:10 on January 31, 2013, Defendant B was on board the victim AK house located in the Cheongdo-gun AJ-gun, Cheongbuk-do-gun, and Defendant A was on the part of the victim’s house through the entrance that was not corrected, with two passbooks for cash of KRW 130,000 in the victim’s house and KRW 130,000,000 in the agricultural cooperatives.” The following is that “The Defendants conspired and habitually stolen another’s property four times as above, the Defendants conspired and habitually stolen another’s property on five occasions,” and except for the change to “the Defendant committed a theft of another’s property on five occasions as above,” it is stated in the criminal facts column of the judgment of the first instance pursuant to Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
Summary of Evidence
this Court.