logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2013.11.28 2013노3925
특수절도등
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

In relation to special larceny, even though the Defendant stolen as stated in the facts charged, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged.

Judgment

The evidence that there is a crime in criminal procedure must be presented by the prosecutor, and the criminal facts must be proven by the judge to have high probability without reasonable doubt, and if there is no evidence to form such a high probability, the defendant is suspected to be guilty even if there is no evidence to establish such a degree.

Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, there is a doubt that the defendant is not committing the special larceny of this case, such as the fact that the personal appearance and the personal appearance shown at the scene of the crime in the vehicle operated by the defendant are of the same kind.

However, according to the above evidence, the circumstances as indicated in the judgment of the court below can be recognized, and the fact that the defendant was designated as a criminal was conducted under the premise that the vehicle of the last body was used for the crime. It cannot be readily concluded that the vehicle of the last body was used for the crime only with the images of field photographs, etc., and the police merely presumed the vehicle as the body-person “presumed” and the witness C of the court below reversed the statement to the investigative agency as shown in the facts charged (in the face of 22 pages of the investigation record), it is difficult to avoid the suspicion that the defendant could not have committed the special larceny of this case.

Therefore, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to find the guilty guilty of the special larceny of this case. In the same purport, the court below did not err by misapprehending the facts charged.

In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is without merit.

arrow