beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds of appeal (the factual error) is sufficiently recognized that the Defendant stolen a Handphone owned by the victims in full view of the following: (a) the victims asked the victims about the Handphones owned by them; (b) each of the larcenys in the instant case occurred from 20:00 to 07:0; (c) it is difficult to regard the victim as the conduct of an external victim; and (d) there is a witness who has observed a suspicious behavior of the victim.
Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged of this case. The lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. On May 25, 2013, from around 18:00 to around 19:00, the Defendant: (a) brought about one cell phone (be R3) equivalent to KRW 500,000 in the market price of the victim’s possession, which was put in the east-gu D Hospital 504 Station C located in Ansan-si, Ansan-si; and (b) was stolen by the Defendant from around 20:0 on June 14, 2013 to around 07:00 on the following day; (c) within the 505 sick room of the said D Hospital; and (d) within the 950,000 mobile phone (gallon 3) of the market price of the victim’s possession in the said place, the victim F brought about one of the mobile phone (gallon 3) at the 950,000 won in the said place.
3) On June 17, 2013, from around 02:00 to around 09:00, the Defendant: (a) within the instant D Hospital 505 sick rooms; (b) made use of the gaps in which the victim G and H were divingd; (c) one mobile phone (gallon S2) equivalent to KRW 500,000 in the victim G ownership market located in the relevant area; and (d) one mobile phone (TE1) equivalent to KRW 600,000 in the victim H ownership market.
B. The lower court determined that the evidence consistent with the facts charged of the instant case contains the statements made by the victims in the investigative agency and by witnesses I, but in light of the following circumstances, it is difficult to view that such evidence alone is sufficient to prove that the facts charged of the instant case is beyond reasonable doubt.