beta
(영문) 수원고등법원 2020.04.02 2019노620

특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)등

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The Defendant asserted that Co-Defendant C, D, M, N (hereinafter “C, etc.”) and the lower judgment conspireds with the Defendant to commit the instant crime (hereinafter “instant crime”).

There is an error of misconception of facts that the court below found guilty.

B. In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court can recognize the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime in collusion with C, etc.

The decision of the court below to the same purport is just and there is no error of mistake as alleged by the defendant.

Defendant

We do not accept the argument.

(1) The fact that a criminal judgment already became final and conclusive on the same factual basis is a flexible documentary evidence, and thus, it cannot be recognized that the facts are contrary to the fact, unless there are any special circumstances that it is difficult to adopt a factual judgment in the criminal trial

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Do10096 Decided June 25, 2009). However, there is no special circumstance in which it is deemed difficult to accept the factual judgment of this final judgment as it is, both of the Defendant and the Defendant, who were prosecuted for committing the instant crime in collusion with the Defendant, was convicted (Seoul High Court Decision 2012No2906 Decided December 13, 2012).

② When providing the proviso to investigation into the instant crime, the Defendant made a statement from an investigative agency to the lower court to make a confession of the entire instant crime.

As co-offenders, C et al. made a statement consistent with the confession of the defendant in the relevant case, and other physical evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below also supported its credibility.

On the other hand, it is difficult to find any circumstance to view that the confession of the defendant is in conflict with or contradictory to it.

(3) The defendant shall go to this court only with C, etc.