무고
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal seems to be not consistent with D's statement on the grounds that D's statement was made without somewhat consistent consistency in light of the fact that D's accurate memory of about 10 years prior to the entrance of the apartment house located at the office of the public official apartment located in Gangdong-dong Seoul, Gangdong-gu, Seoul where D received the Promissory Notes from the Defendant. However, the court below acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case on the ground that D's statement was made in a somewhat consistent manner with D's investigation agency and the court of original instance, and each statement in the court of original instance, E, F, P's statement, payment of insurance money (Evidence No. 130-132 of the evidence record), and the details of passbook transaction (Evidence No. 193-195 of the evidence record), the court below acquitted the Defendant on the facts charged of this case by misunderstanding the facts.
2. Determination
A. In a criminal trial, the burden of proof for the facts constituting an offense prosecuted is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction is to be based on the evidence of probative value that makes the judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, even if there is a suspicion of guilt against the defendant, it shall be determined with the benefit of the defendant.
(See Supreme Court Decision 201Do7261 Decided November 10, 2011, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do7261).
In light of the above legal principles, a thorough examination of the reasons for innocence of the judgment of the court below and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the court below, while explaining the reasons in detail in the "2. Judgment of the court below" item, is difficult to believe each of the statements in investigation agencies D, E, and E, which correspond to the facts charged of this case, and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize the facts charged of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently.