beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Grounds for appeal;
A. The defendant (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for six months, confiscation, and return) of the court below is too unreasonable.
B. In light of the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court’s judgment that acquitted the Defendant on each of the larcenys on October 2018 and on November 12, 2018, based on the erroneous determination of facts, the time close to the victim’s statement, etc., which was found guilty of the misapprehension of the legal doctrine, etc., is erroneous in matters of mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine. (2) The lower court’s above sentence is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that it was insufficient to recognize the theft facts solely with the investigation report stating the victim’s statement and the victim’s statement on the grounds that the Defendant denied the criminal intent of theft as to the circumstance in which the Defendant possessed the damaged goods.
Examining the above judgment of the court below closely by comparing it with the records, the judgment of the court below is just and it cannot be said that there was an error of mistake or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the prosecutor, so this part of the prosecutor's allegation of mistake is without merit
B. In full view of the grounds for sentencing indicated in the instant argument and the record on the assertion of unfair sentencing, namely, the Defendant committed the instant crime during the period of repeated offense; the victim was recovered from damage; the degree of damage caused by the instant crime and the Defendant’s criminal records, etc., the lower court’s sentencing appears to have been reasonably determined by fully considering all the circumstances, including the various grounds for sentencing asserted by the Defendant and the Prosecutor, and there are no special circumstances to the extent of changing the sentencing ex post facto, so the Defendant and the Prosecutor’s assertion of unfair sentencing are without merit.
3. In conclusion, the appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor is with merit.