사기
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error) revealed that the Defendant knew the fact that he used used used used used parts in D Ecoos car (hereinafter “instant vehicle”). Since the Defendant was aware of the condition of the instant vehicle at the time of initial purchase of the instant vehicle, and thus, he did not neglect the Defendant’s obligation to notify the buyer and F of the degree of damage to the vehicle involved in the accident and the degree of damage despite the entry in the register, constitutes a deception by omission. Therefore, the lower court acquitted the Defendant, by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the obligation to notify the Defendant of the crime of fraud, and by misunderstanding the fact, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
Judgment
The burden of proof for the facts constituting an offense prosecuted in the relevant legal doctrine criminal trial is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction is to be based on the evidence of probative value, which 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 2008Do10096 Decided June 25, 2009, etc.). The deception as a requirement for fraud refers to any affirmative or passive act that has a good faith and good faith to observe each other in widely property transactional relationship. The deception by omission refers to a passive act that a person subject to duty of disclosure is aware of the other party being involved in a certain fact and does not notify the other party of such fact. In a case where it is evident that the other party would not have been aware of the fact in light of the empirical rule of general transaction, if it is evident that the other party would not have been aware of the fact, it is legally obligated to notify the fact in light of the good faith principle (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Do3263, Dec. 8, 1998).