beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2013.03.15 2012노4374

사기

Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual errors and misapprehension of legal principles) is sufficiently recognized that the defendant committed the crime described in the facts charged of this case, which the defendant had taken money by deceiving the victim, in light of the fact that the defendant did not receive a maximum amount of money from the defendant when he was liable to D and E, and that he received a maximum amount of money from the victim C and used it for repayment of debts from the victim C and immediately distributed it. However, the court below acquitted the defendant of the facts charged of this case on the grounds of its stated reasoning. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The intent of the crime of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of the crime of fraud, should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances such as the Defendant’s financial history, environment, details and contents of the crime before and after the crime, and the process of transaction execution, insofar as the Defendant does not make a confession. Meanwhile, the recognition of guilt should be based on evidence with probative value sufficient to cause a judge to feel true that 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 of guilt against the Defendant, it is inevitable to determine it as the benefit of the Defendant, and the same applies

(See Supreme Court Decisions 2008Do11718 Decided April 9, 2009; 2004Do74 Decided May 14, 2004, etc.). Various circumstances cited by the lower court and the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, namely, ① the Defendant, as a fraternity, together with two times from 2006 to 2008, the Defendant appears to have been operating normally; ② when D deviates from the instant fraternity, E actually paid KRW 750,000 to its deposit money; ③ D also joins another fraternity.