beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In light of the misunderstanding of facts and the misapprehension of legal principles (2017 order 1697) the Defendant found cash on behalf of the victim N, and did not acquire the withdrawn money on behalf of the victim, and the victim was suffering from dementia, the statement made by the victim's investigative agency that corresponds to the facts charged in the instant case cannot be deemed as having been recognized as credibility.
However, the lower court found the Defendant guilty on this part of the facts charged. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and misunderstanding of facts.
B. The punishment of the lower court (one year of imprisonment with prison labor for the crimes No. 2 and 5 as indicated in the lower judgment, for the crimes No. 3 as indicated in the holding of the lower court, for the crimes No. 3 as indicated in the holding of the lower judgment, and for the crimes No. 1 and No. 4 as indicated in the holding of the lower
2. Determination
A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court: (i) the victim appears to have been diagnosed by dementia around April 7, 2017 by the Defendant at the investigative agency on the following circumstances: (i) the victim made a specific and consistent statement at the investigative agency about the process of withdrawing the money owned by the victim; (ii) the details and method of the crime; and (iii) the victim appears to have been diagnosed by dementia; (iv) on March 29, 2017, the victim got contact with the Defendant at the early police station, and filed a report on damage by directly checking the fact by withdrawing the money; and (v) on March 29, 2017, the victim was unable to communicate due to dementia symptoms at the time of making a statement at the investigative agency on March 29, 2017 at the time of making a statement.
In the absence of extenuating circumstances, ③ According to the CCTV data and the photograph of each agricultural cooperatives, the Defendant, along with the victim on January 9, 2017, appears to have been immediately next to the victim when the victim withdraws the money from the cash withdrawal. At that time, the Defendant was the victim.