beta
Text
The judgment below
The guilty portion shall be reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 7,000,000.
The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In full view of the fact-finding of facts (the acquitted part) that the defendant purchased the stolen part of the mobile phone is a mobile phone, it is common that the defendant owns one cell phone per person in the case of a mobile phone, and that the defendant purchased several times from the stolen owner even though it is an easily stolen item, the J of the stolen owner stated that the defendant purchased a mobile phone from C regardless of whether the defendant is stolen or lost or not, and that he sold the mobile phone by introducing the defendant; that the stolen owner stated that K would sell the stolen part to the defendant by giving the defendant a purchase of a mobile phone, not a normal termination mobile phone; that the stolen owner, E and L were each middle student; that three cell phones traded with the defendant at one time; that L was trading three cell phoness with the defendant and made a statement that L was lost to the defendant three times, it is erroneous in the judgment of the court below that there was an incomplete perception about stolen goods.
B. The charge of unfair sentencing (the part on the charge of oil) of the lower court’s punishment (the fine of 3.5 million won) is too uneased and unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. 1) Determination of the lower court on the assertion of mistake of facts is that the prosecutor bears the burden of proving the facts charged in a criminal trial of the applicable legal doctrine, and the conviction of guilt is based on evidence with probative value, which makes the judge feel true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt (Article 307(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act). If there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt of guilt against the Defendant, it is inevitable to determine the benefit of the Defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Do1385, Aug. 13, 1991; 2008Do10096, Jun. 25, 2009). 1) The lower court’s determination of the lower court is based on ① A mobile phone from the police first seized by the Defendant.