The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Since misunderstanding of facts (not guilty part) can be recognized that the defendant stolen a bicycle as stated in this part of the facts charged, the court below which acquitted the defendant, has erred in misunderstanding of facts.

The sentence of the court below on unreasonable sentencing (the fine of 700,000 won, confiscation) is too unfluent and unfair.

Judgment

The first instance court's decision was clearly erroneous when it was intended to re-examine the first instance court's decision and ex post facto determine whether there was no objective reason that could affect the formation of a documentary evidence in the course of the trial.

There should be reasonable grounds to deem that the argument leading to the fact-finding is remarkably unfair due to the violation of logical and empirical rules to maintain the judgment as it is, and without such exceptional circumstances, the judgment on the fact-finding of the first instance court should not be reversed without permission (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031, Mar. 22, 2017). There is no objective reason that may affect the formation of a new conviction in the trial, and there is no reasonable ground to deem that maintaining the judgment of the lower court is remarkably unfair in comparison with the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the content of the reasoning of the lower court.

The prosecutor's assertion of mistake is without merit.

If there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the first instance court on the assertion of unfair sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance court is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no particular change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court’s reasoning on the grounds that new sentencing materials have not been submitted in the trial, and the reasons for sentencing revealed during the argument of the instant case are as follows.