beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) The Defendant’s misunderstanding of facts into a restaurant as indicated in the judgment of the court below on the date of the judgment of the court below, and there is no theft or fire as stated in the judgment of the court below, and there is no space between the restaurants as indicated in the judgment of the court below and the date of the
Nevertheless, the court below, after taking advantage of the genetic identification result without credibility, stolen cash and prevented it under the same circumstances as the facts stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the court below.
As such, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.
2. Determination
A. In the lower court’s determination as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant asserted the same as the grounds for appeal, and the lower court rejected all of the Defendant’s assertion and convicted the Defendant of the instant facts charged on the grounds of the relevant legal doctrine and the evidence admitted in its holding
Examining the judgment of the court below in comparison with the records and the arguments of the court below, the judgment of the court below is just and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the facts as alleged by the defendant, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
subsection (b) of this section.
Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.
B. We examine the determination of the illegality of sentencing by the Defendant and the prosecutor, and the various circumstances favorable to the Defendant, which were shown in the trial proceedings of the lower court and the lower court (that there was no record of having been sentenced to imprisonment without prison labor or heavier punishment before the Defendant committed the instant crime). Each of the instant crimes committed on December 27, 2014, in the relationship between night-time building intrusion larceny for which the judgment became final and conclusive on December 27, 2014 and the latter concurrent crimes after Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and at the same time, the instant night building intrusion larceny for