beta
(영문) 광주지방법원 2013.04.17 2012노2160

무고

Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. In light of the prosecutor’s summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error) and the defendant’s statement is inconsistent and reliable, while H’s statement is consistent and reliable, there was no fact that the defendant issued 50 million won as stated in the facts charged, or requested H to employ K as a member, as if the facts charged were stated in the facts charged, and there was no delivery of 20 million won as stated in the facts charged. Thus, it is reasonable that the defendant filed a complaint for embezzlement on the premise that he paid the above money, but the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and acquitted the defendant of the facts charged of this case.

2. The recognition of facts constituting an offense in a criminal trial ought to be based on strict evidence with probative value, which makes a judge not to have any reasonable doubt. Thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof fails to fully reach the extent that the defendant’s assertion or defense is inconsistent or unreasonable, it should be determined in the interests of the defendant even if there is suspicion of guilt, such as where the defendant’s assertion or defense is inconsistent or unreasonable.

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Do16628 Decided May 13, 201, etc.). According to the records, the Defendant’s statement that the Defendant gave KRW 50 million to H was made by withdrawing KRW 50 million and withdrawing KRW 50 million to the investigation agency, the lower court, and the lower court, and the lower court, which are inconsistent with other evidence. In light of the following: (a) the Defendant’s statement that he first embezzled KRW 100 million to H; and (b) the Defendant’s statement that he paid KRW 20 million to H was reversed after the Defendant alleged that he embezzled KRW 50 million; and (c) when the Defendant was accused of fraud with respect to money and was investigated by an investigation agency, the Defendant made a statement that he consumed all of his money and then reversed the statement in the court after he was prosecuted.