사기
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence presented by the prosecutor of the gist of the grounds for appeal, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, even though the defendant did not actually provide medical treatment that could have been able to claim the health insurance, as if he provided medical care benefits to the National Health Insurance Corporation as if he could have filed a claim for the health insurance, and obtained a total of KRW 7,635,340 through a total of 504 times.
2. The burden of proof of the facts charged in a criminal trial for judgment is to be borne by the prosecutor, and the conviction should be based on evidence of probative value, which makes the judge not having reasonable doubt as to whether the facts charged are true, to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is a doubt as to the defendant's guilt, it is inevitable to determine it as
(see, i.e., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do9633, Nov. 11, 2010). In addition, in a case where the appellate court intends to conduct a re-evaluation of the first instance court’s judgment after an ex post facto determination in the absence of any objective and objective grounds that may affect the formation of a conviction during the said trial process, there is a reasonable ground to deem that the first instance court’s determination was clearly erroneous or that the argument leading to the fact-finding is considerably unreasonable as it is in violation of logical and empirical rules.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031, Mar. 22, 2017). In the instant case where there is no new ground that may affect the formation of a conviction in the trial, a thorough comparison of the reasoning of the lower judgment with the record, the reasoning of the lower judgment does not seem to have been erroneous or unreasonable in light of logical and empirical rules.
Therefore, it is true.