beta
(영문) 대구지방법원 2015.09.03 2014노4292

사기

Text

Defendant

All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor by mistake of facts (not guilty part of the judgment of the court below), the fact that the defendant, while jointly purchasing the land with the victim, has acquired money from the victim by deceiving the purchase amount. Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of this part of the charges is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (the guilty part of the judgment of the court below) found the facts charged as follows: (a) the Defendant had the victim paid KRW 10 million to H by deceiving the victim on the name of grave equipment, thereby obtaining pecuniary benefits equivalent to the real estate introduction cost; (b) however, the amount of KRW 10 million paid by the victim to H is the name of real estate introduction cost; and (c) there was no fact that the grave belongs to the victim as the name of equipment, as shown in the facts charged in the instant case. Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts charged, or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. (b) The court below’

2. Determination

A. In a criminal trial of a prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts, the recognition of facts should be based on strict evidence with probative value, which leads to a judge to have no reasonable doubt. Thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof has failed to sufficiently reach the extent that such conviction would lead to the prosecutor’s above conviction, the determination should be based on the defendant’s interest even if there is suspicion of guilt, such as the defendant’s assertion or defense contradictory or uncomfortable.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do14487, Apr. 28, 2011). The lower court determined that this part of the facts charged was 8,000 won in the ordinary sale price of land.