사기
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. On May 20, 2008, the summary of the facts charged stated in the charge that the Defendant, at the office of the Defendant located in Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu, Seoyang-si, provides that “The Victim D, with a drinking house, is not good, and the game is good, and the construction project is good. There is a need to enter the office in relation to the construction project, and at the same time, there is a need to lend the last 20 million won.”
However, even if the defendant borrowed money from the victim, the defendant did not have the intent or ability to repay the money as promised.
The Defendant, as such, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 20 million from the victim as the borrowed money on the same day.
2. The lower court rendered a judgment on the ground that the Defendant was acquitted on the grounds that the statement and the statement in D’s investigative agency consistent with the facts charged in the instant case, the statement in the complaint, E’s investigative agency, and the court room are not trustable, and other evidence alone lacks to recognize the facts charged in the instant case.
3. The summary of the grounds for appeal (in fact-finding) is reliable in the statements of D, and the statements of E are different from those of D, but as a whole, they conform to D's statements. The judgment of the court below which rejected such statements of D and E and acquitted the defendant, is erroneous in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence, against the rules of evidence.
4. Judgment of the court of the trial
A. In light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the statements D and E are difficult to believe, and the remaining evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to deem that the facts charged in this case were proven beyond reasonable doubt, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.
1) The Defendant asserts that “No one borrowed KRW 20 million from D, such as written facts of prosecution, and the household price was paid directly by the Defendant.”