사기
All of the appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.
1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of the gist of the grounds for appeal, the fact that the matriarche Defendants conspired to not complete payment by means of borrowing money from the victim F and then transferring the responsibility for repayment to each other can be fully recognized.
The judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous.
2. Determination
A. As to the Defendants’ public offering, the prosecutor indicted Defendant A as co-offenders of the Defendant A, who had borrowed money from F as to the instant facts charged, and conspired Defendant B with each other to pay the borrowed money by transferring the Defendant’s obligation to repay the borrowed money.
However, among the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, there is no clear evidence that Defendant A conspired to not pay the money in full from the time when Defendant A borrowed money from F, and there is no reason to view that Defendant B conspired to pay the money in full.
According to the records, it is recognized that Defendant A borrowed money from F, and that Defendant B told Defendant B “I am hyste (A) hye,” “I amhye (A),” “I amhye (A),” “I amhye (A),” “I amhye (A),” and “I amhye only if I do not use a loan certificate, or if I amhye is in the bankruptcy declaration.”
However, this is merely an erroneous speech while Defendant A borrowed money from F and did not repay a considerable portion of the money to the Defendants, and Defendant B made such remarks. It cannot be acknowledged that Defendant A conspired with F to not pay the money in full from the time of borrowing money from F to Defendant B, and there is no clear evidence suggesting that Defendant B borrowed money from F in collusion with Defendant A.
Therefore, it is directly based on the premise that the defendants conspired to commit fraud.