beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Comprehensively taking account of the following: (a) the Defendant’s summary of the grounds for appeal did not report to the investigation agency, etc. and stored the Nowonbuk bank in the vehicle; (b) the police officer who confirmed CCTV found it and returned it after the discovery of CCTV; and (c) the Defendant’s statement made by the employees of the burial where the Defendant works is difficult to believe, it can be acknowledged that the Defendant obtained unlawful acquisition intent against the Nowon
2. Determination
A. On April 20, 2014, the Defendant: (a) obtained the victim E (M, 44 years old) from the bus stops located in Ansan-si, Dong-si; (b) and embezzled the possession of the separated object with the intent of acquisition with the above Nowon-do with the intent of acquisition without taking necessary procedures, such as reporting it to the nearby police station, etc., after acquiring the victim E (M, 44 years old) from the bus stops located in the instant bus stops located in Ansan-si; (c) and (d) without reporting it to the nearest police station, etc.
B. The lower court’s judgment: (a) the following circumstances that can be acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated; (b) the Defendant, i.e., the Defendant, after acquiring the instant bank, was able to keep the bank back to his own vehicle in transit; and
(2) The Defendant was unable to timely report the fact that the Defendant was visiting Seoul to receive education on the day after consistently acquiring the instant bags from the investigative agency to the instant court (the 14th page of investigation records), and the Defendant was unable to timely report the fact that he was found to have received education on the day from the investigative agency to the instant court.
In full view of the fact that there is no objective material to reject the above assertion, ③ the defendant’s work club fee from the defendant, ③ the defendant prepared a written statement to the court that he had known that he had known that he had been in custody of the instant bank, and ④ there is no evidence to prove that the defendant used or intended to dispose of the instant bank, the defendant was placed in the bus stop.