beta
Text
The defendant dismissed an application for compensation filed by the applicant for compensation.
Reasons
1. Summary of the facts charged
A. Special larceny Defendant was aware of his knowledge
C, D, E, and F, on November 23, 2014, at around 22:00, 22:00, 2014, the victim B, who was parked in the roads near Busan G, Busan, had no number plate equivalent to KRW 1,00,00, the market price of the victim B, and the Defendant D, E, and F, considered the surrounding areas, and reported the network, and C used the key of the Otobba, which was in possession, to cut off by driving the Oba in the above Oba, by putting it into the Oba, and by driving it at the speed of the Oba in the above Oba, by means of a string.
Accordingly, the defendant stolen the property owned by the victim together with C, D, E, and F.
B. On November 2014, the Defendant driven a wing wing wing wing, without a motor device or bicycle driver’s license, in the section where the distance from the day-to-day Busan, was not known, on the ground that the Defendant driven a wing wing wing wing wing without a number plate as described in paragraph 1 without a motor device or bicycle driver’s license.
2. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the prosecutor, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone alone is insufficient to acknowledge the theft of the above Y, there is no other evidence to acknowledge the theft, and there is no evidence to prove that the defendant was driving the above YY (the defendant, while he led to the confession that the Ba was driving the Bato at the time and place specified in the 1-B B, there is no evidence to support the Ba.) ① The statement made by C and D, which seems to correspond to the facts charged, is insufficient to believe that there is no consistency.
C even though this Court had the view that it could be c’s memory, and D, at the initial investigation agency, had the same time as himself and C at the theft site.
The statement was made by C and the statement was re-written by C to the effect that he, C, F, E, and the defendant was at a theft site.
was testified.
(2) previously at a theft scene.
E.F. .