사기등
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal argues that 7% of the sales proceeds received from the victim is the share of the Z in the investigative agency that operates a corporation AA (hereinafter “A”), but the court below reversed the claim that the victim provided information on T (hereinafter “T”) to the corporation, and paid it as the case cost.
In the lower court’s judgment, H also employees in copyright affairs of Z and G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”), who attended the court as a witness, were the Defendant’s share of the amount of money that the victim gave to the Defendant. However, the lower court reversed the victim’s statement as the amount of money given to the Defendant as a precedent fee.
Considering the fact that the amount transferred by the victim to the defendant is ultimately reverted to the defendant and H after abnormal financing flows, and that there is no reason for the victim to pay 7% out of 15% of the victim’s share to the defendant as a honorarium because of the low role of the defendant in this case, and that both the defendant, witness Z and H are highly likely to make a false statement for mutual benefit through high school windows, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of the facts charged of this case, despite the credibility of the victim’s statement, is erroneous.
2. In full view of the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined, the lower court determined that the evidence alone, as stated in the facts charged, is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Defendant actively induceds the victim to pay G money as stated in the facts charged, and that it is insufficient to readily conclude that the Defendant engaged in financial transactions under the real name of another person for the purpose of evading the law.