beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for ten months.
Defendant
The facts charged in this case against A.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. misunderstanding of facts 1) The theft of each of the instant mobile phone by a mobile phone (the Defendant) was committed by Defendant C alone, and Defendant A and B did not have any participation in the theft of the mobile phone by Defendant C. The judgment below which found the Defendant guilty of this part of the charges was erroneous in the misapprehension of facts. 2) Defendant A was guilty of a special larceny against Defendant AK of the victim A (the Defendant A) (the fact that Defendant A did not participate in the theft of a person who has been engaged in the formation, foundation, television, etc. of Defendant C, but rather,
The judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty on this part of the facts charged is erroneous.
B. The sentence imposed by the court below (10 months of imprisonment) is too unlimited and unfair.
2. Determination
A. 1) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, it is recognized that the following facts or statements have been made.
① Defendant A and B led to confession from the police on the special theft of each of the instant mobile phones.
On May 2, 2013, the above Defendants led to confession by the prosecution on the remaining special larceny except special larceny. On the first trial date of the lower court, they led to the confession of the facts charged and the denial of them by three times during the third trial.
② Defendant C was clearly stated in the prosecutor’s office and the court of the court below that Defendant C driven the vehicle while Defendant C and B stolen a mobile phone, and that Defendant C was aware of the networked in the nearby wife.
In particular, the witness at the court of the court below stated that “A or B would cause an accident,” and that “A would be the same as a mobile phone at that time,” and that “A would be the same as a witness at that time,” and that “A would be the same as a witness at that time,” and the Defendant stated that “B was the same.”