사기등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant
A A A Fines of 10,00,000 won, Defendant B of a fine of 5,00,000 won, and Defendant C of a fine of 1,000 won.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Although the court below reversed the statement of the investigative agency in the court below, according to evidence such as the victim's statement at investigation agency and the account transaction details, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, even though it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant A acquired money from the victim and embezzled money.
B. The punishment of the lower court (each of the Defendants’ KRW 3 million) is deemed to be too uneasy and unfair.
2. Judgment on the assertion that Defendant A is erroneous in facts
A. The credibility of the statement made by the injured party at an investigative agency is 1) The credibility of the statement made by the investigative agency cannot be denied solely on the ground that the injured party reversed the victim’s statement made by the investigative agency in the court under the circumstances where it is not possible to believe the victim’s legal statement, based on the basic principle of criminal procedure, such as trial-oriented principle and substantial direct deliberation principle.
In full view of the following circumstances, the credibility of the statement made by the injured party in an investigative agency should be determined by examining whether the credibility of the statement can be reinforced by other objective evidence or circumstantial facts, along with the reasonableness of the statement itself, objective reasonableness, consistency before and after, and the existence of interests, and whether there are circumstances contrary to the facts charged (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Do11650, Aug. 20, 2015, etc.). 2) The lower court’s duly adopted and investigated evidence by the court of the lower court, and comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances, the credibility of the statement made in the investigative agency can be recognized with the content that the injured party offered the victim’s benefits to the Defendant A as stated in the facts charged of the fraud and sent the passbook to the Agricultural Cooperative Account in the name of the injured party [N; hereinafter “NN”) as stated in the embezzlement charges.
A) The credibility of the original court’s statement is ① The victim is either at the court of the original instance.