[사기피고][집2(2)형,001]
The presumption of the offender and the will of the offender;
Even if the presumption of the result of an offender at the time of a criminal act and the result thereof are superior, if there is a reason to recognize that the forecast is ordinarily possible, the intention for the fraud shall not be recognized.
Articles 13 and 347 of the Criminal Act
Prosecutor
Daegu District Court of the first instance, Daegu High Court of the second instance, Daegu High Court of the second instance.
The final appeal is dismissed.
The gist of the appeal by the public prosecutor at the Daegu High Public Prosecutor's Office is that the defendant borrowed 15 U.S. dollars from his own house during January 1952 and borrowed 15 U.S. dollars to return 30 U.S. dollars to the non-indicted 15 U.S. on the same day. The second public prosecutor's office knew 15 U.S. dollars to the non-indicted 15 U.S. dollars to the non-indicted 15, and obtained 15 U.S. dollars to the non-indicted 15 to the non-indicted 3's interest on the non-indicted 5's charges. However, the court below found the non-indicted 10 U.S. dollars to be non-indicted 5's interest on the non-indicted 1952. The court below found the non-indicted 2's non-indicted 9's interest on the non-indicted 19's new seeds to the non-indicted 10's new seeds to the non-indicted 3's new seeds.
Although the summary of the grounds of appeal by the court below is clear by the records that the defendant's public opinion corresponding to the facts charged that he acquired 15 US dollars from 15 to 4 in the year of 1952 without any import other than small-scale farmers, and that the harvest was about 2 US dollars in the year of 1952, even after it was predicted that he could not return 30 US dollars in the year of 195, he could not return 100 US dollars in the remaining year of 15 US dollars, he could not be found that the court below recognized that the defendant did not have evidence of this crime in violation of the experimental rules or experience rules. However, according to the court below's first instance court's reasoning and the court below's reasoning that the defendant could not return 300 US dollars in the year of 1952, since he did not have the ability to return 100 US dollars in the year of 1952.
Justices Kim Byung-ro (Presiding Justice)