beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant (1) misunderstanding of facts as to the fraud of the victim Q Q, there is no deceiving the victim Q Q from or receiving money.
② From September 10, 2013 to the victim S, around September 10, 2013, there was a high iron of 1.5 million won to the victim S around that time.
(2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.
B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. (1) In light of the spirit of the substantial direct and psychological principle adopted by the Korean Criminal Procedure Act, unless there are special circumstances to deem that the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the first instance was clearly erroneous, or in view of the results of the first instance court’s examination and the results of additional examination of evidence not later than the closing of argument in the appellate trial, maintaining the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the first instance court is clearly unfair, the appellate court should respect the determination on the credibility of the statement made
(2) On November 24, 2006, the lower court directly examined Q2, V, W, and S, etc., and acknowledged the credibility of the testimony and found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case. There are special circumstances to deem that the lower court’s determination of credibility of the testimony was clearly erroneous.
It is not considered significantly unfair to maintain its judgment as it is.
Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below such as the above testimony, it is recognized that the defendant issued a tax invoice under the name of the defendant and received 9.6 million won to the victim Q by stating that he would produce a heavy 100 million won, and that he did not supply scrap metal after he received 1.5 million won to the victim S.
Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is justified.