beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.05.16 2018노3348

무고

Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. In full view of the summary of the grounds for appeal from the investigation agency to the original trial, as well as consistent D and K’s statement, sales funds statement, funds flow statement, financial transaction statement, passbook copy, receipt, etc., it is recognized that the Defendant was well aware that, while occupying and managing the passbook and seal of G bank account in the name of G used for operation and managing C, the Defendant was aware that it was not embezzled of each of the instant money transferred from the said G’s account to another account.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant not guilty of the facts charged in this case where the defendant made a false accusation that he embezzled each of the above amounts. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles.

2. Determination

A. In a criminal trial, the conviction of guilt should be based on evidence with probative value, which could lead a judge to have a conviction of not having a reasonable doubt, to the extent that the facts charged are true. Unless such proof is given, the conviction of the defendant cannot be determined even if there is a suspicion of guilt against the defendant.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2017Do7768 Decided August 24, 2017, etc.). B.

Although the court below's witness D and K made a statement to the effect that the defendant occupied and managed the passbook and seal impression in the above G name, according to the statement of Q Q which appears to take the most objective position among the original witness and the circumstances where the company's funds were frequently deposited through the above account at the time, etc., unlike the facts charged in this case, it appears that the defendant used them under the management of D in April, 2010, not under the possession and management of passbook and seal impression in the above G name, and each of the statements of the court below witness D and K on part of each of the amounts in this case are inconsistent or inconsistent with the specific parts.