beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
Reasons
1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the court below found the defendant not guilty of the defendant, despite the fact that the defendant could have stolen gold gings and gold gings for young children owned by the victim, is erroneous in the misapprehension of the facts.
2. An ex officio determination prosecutor changed the indictment to add the name of the first offense to “Embezzlement of stolen goods”, “Article 360(1) of the Criminal Act” and “Article 360(1) of the Criminal Act” to “Article 360(1) of the Criminal Act” as the conjunctive applicable provisions of this case. However, in light of the criminal facts, this is just because it appears to be “Article 360(1) of the Criminal Act” and the facts charged are deemed to be “Article 360(1) of the Criminal Act,” and the above facts charged are stated in the criminal facts column.”
The judgment of the court below can no longer be maintained due to the above reasons for ex officio destruction, but the prosecutor's argument for misconception of facts about the primary facts is still subject to the judgment of the court, and this is examined.
3. Judgment on the grounds of appeal as to the primary facts charged
A. The summary of the facts charged is as follows: (a) the Defendant, while working as the head of the team belonging to Cowewa Co., Ltd., Ltd., and was in charge of the product management duties used by the customers of the said company, at the victim E’s house located D 102 and 513 Boan-si around December 2012, the Defendant: (b) inspected the air condition of the said company used by the victim; and (c) cut off one gold 18 KK’s 180,000 won of the market price owned by the victim when she was placed on the cremation site by taking advantage of the gap in which the victim’s surveillance was neglected; and (d) cut off the gold stuff and gold macks.
B. The lower court’s determination is that the Defendant’s collective structure of the victim’s house is air conditioned.