beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (public prosecutor) that the defendant did not go to the Dong office of pharmacist, which is the promise place after making a telephone call with the defendant, and that the defendant was unable to make a cell phone at the time when the defendant made a telephone call with the victim;
In light of the above, it appears that the defendant had no intention to return the mobile phone, and the F’s legal statement of the court below, a witness who was a witness who was not examined at all by the investigative agency, is hard to believe in light of the relation with the defendant. Even if the defendant said F to have the mobile phone returned the mobile phone, it is hard to find the defendant guilty if it was considered that the situation was not due to the after the act of larceny was terminated, and the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of the facts charged of
2. Determination
A. In a criminal trial of relevant legal principles, the finding of guilt ought to be based on evidence with probative value, which makes it possible for a judge to have a reasonable doubt that the facts charged are true, to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt, and if there is no such proof, the conviction cannot be determined even if there is a suspicion of guilt against the defendant.
In addition, in light of the fact that the criminal appellate court has the character as a post-examination even after the fact, and the spirit of substantial direct trial as provided in the Criminal Procedure Act, there is a lack of evidence to exclude a reasonable doubt after the first instance court has gone through the examination of evidence such as the examination of witness.
In a case where a not-guilty verdict is rendered on the facts charged, if it does not reach the extent that it can sufficiently resolve the reasonable doubt raised by the first instance trial even if the probability or doubt about some opposing facts may be raised as a result of the appellate trial’s examination, there is an error of mistake in the determination of facts in the first instance judgment, which lacks proof of crime solely
shall be conclusive.