Text
Defendant
All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant (1) did not specify the facts charged by misapprehending the legal principles, and the facts charged stated the date and time of the crime as “as of May 2, 2012, 15:00” but the lower court, without any amendment to the indictment, recognized the date and time of the crime as “the time and time and time of the crime” differently as “the time and time and time of the crime on May 2, 2012.
(2) In fact-finding, the Defendant did not destroy a locking device, and even though the locking device was not owned by the victim, it was not owned by the Defendant, the lower court recognized the Defendant as a crime of damage by mistake of facts
(3) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (700,000 won of fine) is too unreasonable.
B. The lower court acquitted the Defendant of the damage and damage of property from May 14, 2012 to May 15, 2012 and the obstruction of business since the instant church building and trees are owned by the victim, and thus, acquitted the Defendant, who interfered with the removal of the church building and the electrical removal of the church building.
(2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing is too unjustifiable.
2. Determination:
A. The purport of the law that stipulates the date, time, place, and method of a crime in the facts charged regarding the Defendant’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine lies in limiting the scope of the trial against the court and allowing the Defendant to exercise his/her right of defense by specifying the scope of defense. Therefore, the facts charged are sufficient to include the facts constituting the elements of a crime in a way that can distinguish them from other facts, in full view of these elements
(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Do6646, Jan. 14, 2005, etc.). The facts charged of the instant case (the part acknowledged as a crime of oil) destroyed the Defendant by using a laundry or cutting tool on May 2, 2012. The facts charged are limited to the subject of the trial against the court and the scope of the Defendant’s defense.