사기
The judgment below
On October 5, 2010, among the parts against Defendant C, the fraud point in relation to traffic accidents is reversed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding the facts) is as follows: each traffic accident listed in the facts charged in the instant case is caused between the two parties, and the frequency thereof is several times. In light of the fact that the perpetrator and the victim of each traffic accident are changed to another traffic accident or to the perpetrator or the victim of another traffic accident or to the same passenger, each traffic accident is causing the insurance money to be worn off and intentionally.
2. The alteration of the subject matter of adjudication following the alteration of indictment and the judgment thereof
A. In the appellate trial, the prosecutor changed the indictment at the appellate court filed an application for changes in the indictment with respect to Defendant C on October 5, 2010 among the facts charged against Defendant C, and the subject of the judgment was changed by this court’s permission. As such, the part of the judgment below against Defendant C of the judgment below on October 5, 2010 related to the fraud related to the traffic accident of Defendant C was no longer maintained.
However, the prosecutor's assertion of mistake as to the above fraud is still subject to a trial by this court within the scope related to the revised facts charged, and we will examine below.
B. On October 5, 2012, Defendant C’s fraud related to traffic accident 1) The summary of Defendant C’s factory room “The Defendant, on October 5, 2012, 201, she obtained KRW 960,000 from Samsung Fire by causing a false traffic accident causing a collision of H engine devices driven by Defendant C, which she was on board with a driver’s own string machine in the middle of the alley of Seongbuk-gu Seoul, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul, on October 5, 2012, by obtaining KRW 960,000 from Samsung Fire.
“2) Determination A) The burden of proving the facts charged in a criminal trial is imposed on the prosecutor, and the conviction of guilt is based on evidence with probative value sufficient for the judge to have a reasonable doubt that the facts charged are true, so if there is no such evidence, such evidence shall be available.