beta
Text
All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendants’ sentence (Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for a year and two months, confiscation, Defendant B: imprisonment with prison labor for a year and one year, confiscation) is too unreasonable.
B. The Defendants, among the facts charged in the instant case, led to confessions as to the charge of special larceny No. 1 per annum (1) of the crime sight table (hereinafter “instant charges”), among which the Defendants were charged, and there was reinforced evidence to guarantee the authenticity of the confessions, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misapprehending the legal doctrine, which acquitted the Defendants.
2. Judgment on the prosecutor's misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles
A. On January 15, 2019, at the apartment parking lot located in Gyeyang-gu Incheon, Gyeyang-gu, Incheon, the Defendants: (a) placed a day on which Defendant B had previously possessed the network on the key hole of the vehicle ATS driving car; (b) removed the corrective device by means of putting it into the key hole of the vehicle ATS owner; and (c) removed the corrective device by putting the cash amount of KRW 10,000, which was kept in custody inside the vehicle; and (d) cut off the victim’s property jointly by bringing about about KRW 10,000,000.
B. The lower court determined as follows based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court: ① The Defendants’ behavior mode in this part of the facts charged is as follows: (i) “The day on which the first day of the Defendant’s possession of the Defendant A was in front between the Defendant B’s network was stored in the key hole of the vehicle AS owner (hereinafter “instant vehicle”); and (ii) the Defendant released the corrective device by means of putting it into the key hole of the driver’s seat, which is the victim AS owner; and (iii) according to the on-site identification report (AT), the police officer called upon receiving the report was identified on the site of the instant vehicle, and the police officer presumed that the Defendant did not correct the vehicle door after parking the vehicle.