beta
Text
All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. (i) The Defendant was in a state of mental disorder or mental disorder under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime on November 24, 2012.
B. The sentence sentenced by the court below of unreasonable sentencing (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. The lower court that acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged on November 23, 2012, despite the fact that the Defendant had stolen the victim F’s wallet on November 23, 2012, is erroneous in matters of mistake of facts.
The sentence of unfair sentencing sentenced by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.
2. Determination
A. As to the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant of this part of the facts charged is habitually, and on November 23, 2012, 18:54 Seoul Jongno-gu, Jongno-ro 69, the Defendant discovered the victim F from the subway No. 4 Line platform of the subway No. 69 on the right arms to the right arms of the subway No. 69 on November 23, 2012, and cut off 180,000 won in cash owned by the victim by inserting the gap in which the victim’s attention was neglected in the subway No. 180,000 won, and 10,000 won in cash owned by the victim by other victims, including one driver’s license, resident registration certificate, credit card No. 10,000 won, five credit card No. 5, and two points card No. 100,000 won in the market price.
As to the above charged facts, the court below held that ① F’s statement of the police officer was aware of the fact that F was not aware at the time of the loss of the wall, and that the wall was lost after arrival at the destination of the subway; ② The images of CCTV photographs maintained the nearest distance from F, and that F was driven at the subway station in the subway station and the subway station in the subway station, and F was broken out from the subway station, and it was insufficient to recognize that F was stolen of the wall. The above evidence alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant stolen the wall.