사기등
Of the convictions of the judgment of the court below, the crimes in the annexed list No. 10 to No. 14 of the judgment of the court below are excluded.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In relation to each of the crimes listed in [Attachment 1] No. 18, 19 of the judgment of the court below in the public prosecutor, the defendant consistently recognized that Q, R or Q, and A obtained insurance proceeds in collusion with Q, Q, R, and A, and Q, R, and A also received medical treatment at a hospital to receive insurance proceeds, even though there was no minor accident in the prosecutor's office or the court below's office.
In full view of this, although the defendant could be recognized that he acquired insurance proceeds in collusion with Q, R, and A, this part of the facts charged is recognized as a single crime by the defendant, and the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of the reasons for the crime of conspiracy is erroneous.
B. Defendant’s punishment (each of the crimes listed in [Attachment 10-14] No. 10-14 of the judgment below: Imprisonment with prison labor for five months, suspension of execution for two years, and all the other crimes listed in the judgment below: imprisonment with prison labor for two years) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination as to the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts
A. In a criminal trial, the conviction of guilt should be based on evidence with probative value, which could lead a judge to feel true enough to have a reasonable doubt. Unless such proof is given, the conviction cannot be determined even if there is a suspicion of guilt against the defendant.
In addition, in light of the fact that the appellate court has the character as a post-trial and the spirit of substantial direct trial as provided in the Criminal Procedure Act, there is insufficient evidence to exclude reasonable doubts after the first instance court has gone through the examination of evidence such as examination of witness, etc.
In a case where a not-guilty verdict is found on the facts charged, if it does not reach the extent to which the reasonable doubt causing the first instance trial can be sufficiently resolved, even if the probability or question about some opposed facts may be raised as a result of the appellate trial’s examination.