beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and improper sentencing);
A. The Defendant, as stated in the judgment of the court below, was guilty of thiefing the Defendant, but, as long as the Defendant, as the Defendant was aware of the fact, found the principal and brought about a return idea, and stored the damp wall in the postal box and returned the wall to the victim, there was a criminal intent of larceny against the Defendant.
subsection (b) of this section.
B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.
2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts
A. On January 11, 2016, the Defendant: (a) committed a theft of KRW 33,000 in cash owned by the victim C; (b) KRW 2,00 in the market price, KRW 2, resident registration certificate 1; and (c) KRW 200,00 in the market price on the part of the student certificate 1, at the 3rd waiting room located in the Gu-U.S., Nowon-gu, Seoul; (b) around 05:59, the Defendant was guilty of the instant facts charged on the basis of the evidence indicated in the judgment below.
(c)
Comprehensively taking account of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by legal principles and evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, the facts charged in this case have been proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt.
It is difficult to see it, and it is difficult to recognize it by comprehensively considering all evidence of the submission of inspection.
① The burden of proving the facts constituting an offense prosecuted in a criminal trial is to be borne by a public prosecutor, and the conviction is to be based on evidence with probative value, which makes the judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt as to the Defendant’s guilt, it is inevitable to determine the benefit of the Defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1151, Jul. 22, 2010).