Defendant

Prosecutor

The type of prosecution, the type of prosecution (public trial)

Attorney Lee Sung-sung (Korean)

Changwon District Court Decision 2010Gohap1349 Decided January 20, 2012

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

When the defendant fails to pay the above fine, the defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period converted by 50,000 won into one day.

In order to order the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fine.

All the costs of the original judgment and the trial shall be borne by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, although it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant stolen the instant vehicle, the court below rendered a not-guilty verdict on the facts charged of this case. In so doing, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment

2. Determination

A. Summary of the facts charged in this case

The following criminal records are as follows:

B. The judgment of the court below

The lower court acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged on the ground that the police interrogation protocol and the protocol of statement of statement on the Defendant and the protocol of statement on Nonindicted Party 2, among the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, are inadmissible, and that Nonindicted Party 1 and Nonindicted Party 2 consented to bring the Defendant on their own according to their respective statements in the protocol of trial, and the remainder of the evidence alone is insufficient to acknowledge the guilty of the facts charged, and there

C. Judgment of the court below

In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the court below stated that the victim's statement was insufficient to reverse the victim's statement at the court of first instance and each copy of the suspect examination protocol against the non-indicted 2, i.e., ① the vice president of ○○○○○ operated by the victim borrowed the vehicle of this case from the defendant around September 209, and later, the defendant knew of the fact that the defendant stolen the vehicle of this case from another person in ○○○○○○○○, and then, the court of the court below and the court of the court of the first instance stated that "the victim's statement was transferred to the defendant without collateral to the bank from among those owned by the defendant for repayment of the defendant." The victim's statement at the court of the court below and the court of the court of the court of the first instance is not only different from the victim's statement at the court of the first instance and the court of the first instance, but also it is hard to see that the victim's statement at the court below's discretion and the court of the first instance.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the charged facts of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and the prosecutor's above assertion is with merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the prosecutor's appeal is justified, and the judgment of the court below is reversed and it is decided again as follows.

The Defendant, from Jinhae-si (hereinafter address 1 omitted), was a person who is engaged in the joint gold trade business with the trade name of Nonindicted Co. 3, and the victim Nonindicted Co. 2, the president of the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ located in Kim Jong-si (hereinafter address 2 omitted), who was in bankruptcy and was able to conceal his whereabouts, and on June 13, 2009, he stolen the vehicle (three tons, vehicle number omitted) owned by the victim (three tons, vehicle number omitted) who was parked in the factory ma at the victim’s factory within the victim’s factory, by driving the vehicle directly from the victim to around 500 meters away from the place, and driving the vehicle for approximately KRW 12 million at the market price.

1. Each part of the statement in the original judgment and the trial court of the defendant;

1. Partial statement of the witness at the trial court of the non-indicted 1's witness

1. Each part of the statement of the witness Nonindicted 2 and 1 at the court of original instance

1. Entry of the copy of each protocol of interrogation of Nonindicted Party 2 in the prosecutor's office

1. Statement made by the police on Nonindicted 1

1. Statement of investigation report (Attachment of photographs of damaged articles);

1. Entry in the construction machinery register; and

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Article 329 (Selection of Fine)

2. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

3. Order of provisional payment; and

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

4. Bearing litigation costs;

Article 191(1) and the main sentence of Article 186(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

The crime of this case was committed in favor of the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant was unable to receive the payment from the victim, that the defendant agreed smoothly with the victim, and that the crime of this case was stolen from the defendant's market price of 12 million won, which is the victim, and the nature of the crime of this case is not easy. The defendant's unfavorable circumstances such as the defendant's denial of the crime of this case, such as the defendant's criminal records, character, conduct and environment, and the background and result of the crime of this case, the circumstances after the crime, etc., and all other circumstances that are conditions for sentencing specified in the records and arguments, shall be determined as the sentence as ordered.

Judges higher than judges (Presiding Judge) and Kim Young-young