Where a confession has been made by an investigative agency during the period of making funds to the juvenile reformatory, the credibility of such confession.

It shall not be easy for a person financed in a juvenile reformatory to commit a crime in collusion with another accomplice outside the juvenile reformatory.

Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Seoul District Court Branch of Seoul District Court (85 high-level897)

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment for a short term of two years and six months, a long term of three years, and a short term of two years and a long term of three years, respectively.

One hundred and seventy days of detention days prior to the pronouncement of the judgment of the court below shall be included in the above punishment.

Defendant 1 is not guilty of the charge of special larceny of 22:30 on October 1984.

The gist of the defendants' grounds for appeal is that the sentence imposed by the court below against the defendants is too unreasonable, and the summary of the grounds for appeal by the defendant 1's attorney does not commit each of the crimes under Articles 3, 4b and 8 of the judgment of the court below, but the court below erred in the misapprehension of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by falsely recognizing the fact that the defendant committed the crime under the judgment of the court below although the defendant 1 did not commit the crimes under Articles 3, 4, 5, 8, 9A and 8 of the judgment of the court below, and the first point of the grounds for appeal by the defendant 2's attorney is that the defendant 2 committed the crimes under the judgment of the court below although he did not commit all of the crimes under Articles 3, 4, 5, 8, 9 (a) and 3 of the judgment of the court below, the court below erred by misunderstanding the fact that the crime under the judgment of the court below was committed, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, or by misunderstanding the legal principles as to 200.

Therefore, examining the above reasons for appeal as to mistake of facts, and the various evidences duly examined and adopted by the court below, the remaining facts except those of No. 3 of the judgment of the court below are sufficient to be recognized, and the above appeal is all groundless.

Then, according to the discharge certificate against Defendant 2 prepared by the director of the Seoul Juvenile Reformatory, Defendant 2 can be acknowledged as financing the Seoul Juvenile Reformatory from March 16, 1984 to March 4, 1985, and it is evident that the above facts charged were a fact that Defendant 2 had been financing the juvenile reformatory for the financial resources of the juvenile reformatory, and it is difficult to view that Defendant 2 had committed larceny in collusion with Defendant 1 and co-defendants in the court of original trial to deny the facts charged and to support the facts charged. The reasons why the defendants led to the confession of the prosecution by the defendant 1 and co-defendants at the prosecutor's office are that there was credibility or credibility. Thus, it is not reasonable to view that the above facts charged were proved that the defendant 2 had no credibility or credibility of the facts charged.

Therefore, the court below's finding the defendant guilty of the above special larceny does not constitute an unlawful act that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts, and since the above special larceny crime and the remaining criminal facts which the court below found guilty are part of concurrent crimes or a single comprehensive crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the judgment of the court below cannot be reversed in its entirety.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act and the judgment shall be rendered again after pleadings, if it is not necessary to determine the grounds for appeal by the defendants and their defense counsels.

The gist of the evidence and the facts charged by the Defendants admitted as a party member is as of the time of original adjudication, since Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act is the same as at the time of original adjudication, except for the case where “4,5,6,7,8,9,10” is changed to “3,4,6,7,8,90” after deducting the three facts constituting the offense in the original judgment.

Article 2(2) and (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 350(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 331(2) and (1) of the Criminal Act, and Article 350(2) of the same Act, Article 331(2) and (1) of the same Act, Article 334(2) of the same Act, Article 9 of the same Act, Article 334(1) of the same Act, Article 36 of the same Act, Article 37 of the same Act, Article 35-2 of the same Act, Article 2 of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc., and Article 35-1 of the same Act, Article 3 of the same Act, Article 5 of the same Act, Article 2 of the same Act, Article 5 of the same Act, Article 2 of the same Act, Article 5 of the same Act, and Article 34(2) and (1) of the same Act, as well as Article 37 of the same Act, of the same Act, concerning the maximum punishment of each of the Act, etc.

Of the facts charged in this case, the defendants conspired with co-defendant 22:30 on Oct. 1, 1984, defendant 2 entered the gate which was open to the victim's house in the name of the fire-fighting Dong in Gangseo-gu Seoul, Gangseo-gu, Seoul, and one tape recorder and one clock market price equivalent to the irregular amount, or the joint theft thereof was not guilty as there is no evidence as stated in the reasoning of the reversal of the judgment below. Thus, the defendant 1 is acquitted in accordance with Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, with respect to the defendant 2, the defendant 2 was prosecuted for a comprehensive crime including the above facts charged, and the defendant 2 is guilty as to each habitual special larceny under Article 2,3,4,6,78-A, and b of the above facts charged, and the decision of the court below is not pronounced otherwise.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges KimHun-tae (Presiding Justice)