beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case, despite the fact that the defendant was aware of the mobile phone as one of his own, and there was no intention to commit the larceny, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment
B. The sentence (one million won of fine) imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s duly adopted and investigated evidence regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, i.e., the victim left a mobile phone in the beauty room toilet, and thereafter entered the toilet.
The defendant laid his own beauty room; ② the defendant reported the cell phone shuttle in the police interrogation process immediately after the occurrence of the crime; ② the defendant stated that he was out of the beauty room because he had the toilet shut on the front of the police interrogation process; ③ on the first day of the trial of the court below, the defendant denied the crime of this case; ③ the defendant led to the confession of the crime of this case during the second day of the trial; ④ the defendant attempted to return his cell phone to the victim. However, considering the fact that the defendant did not return his cell phone to the victim or beauty room before the police recovered direct damage due to the analysis of CCTV and customer contact information after the crime of this case, it cannot be said that the crime of this case was sufficiently recognized that the victim Gap puts the cell shut on the inner toilet and stolen it into his own bank; and, as such, it cannot be said that there was an error of law by mistake of the facts pointed out by the defendant, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.
B. The mobile phone, which is an issue of determining unfair sentencing, has been returned to the victim, and the defendant in 207.