beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. As to the larceny of Section 1-A of the judgment below as stated in the misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, the defendant tried to pay the price by using the card, but did not make the payment due to the shortage of the balance, and he left the personal phone with 1 math as he did not go to do so, and he again tried to pay the sum of KRW 25,000 and KRW 12,000,000 as he did not go to pay by the card again, but did not go to pay the price by again by visiting the main points of the victim C on the next day, thereby paying KRW 37,00,000 including the amount by visiting the main points of the victim C on the next day. Thus, there was no intention of illegal acquisition.
With respect to the damage of Article 2 of the decision of the court below as to the damage of the article for public use, the defendant is aware of the fact that he was friendly with the chemical part, and that the tree planted with the chemical part due to this fact has broken down. However, under the influence of alcohol at the time, the body was lost due to the lack of balance, and all sorts of chemical parts were fluent, so there was no intention to damage the article for public use. Thus, the chemical part of the case cannot be viewed as the article for public use, which is the object for the crime of damage of the article for public use.
B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (the penalty amount of KRW 700,000) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. According to the victim’s investigative agency and the court below’s statement as to the allegation of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles 1) as to the Do of Section C, it is acknowledged that the defendant had 1 marith as he did not consent of the victim C. Thus, even if the defendant discovered the theft of the defendant and demanded payment of the price, he paid the victim C the price for the Do of misunderstanding.
Even if the defendant had the intention of larceny, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant had the intention of larceny.
Therefore, the defendant's mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles are without merit.
2) As to the damage of public goods, the court below is legitimate.