beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence presented by the Prosecutor as to the gist of the grounds for appeal, it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant had a willful negligence in breach of trust.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. The burden of proof for the criminal facts prosecuted in a criminal trial is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction of guilt is to be based on the evidence of probative value, which makes the judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. If there is no evidence to establish such a degree of conviction, it is doubtful that the defendant is guilty even if there is no evidence to establish such a conviction.
Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.
(See Supreme Court Decision 9Do4305 delivered on February 25, 2000, etc.). B.
In light of the above legal principles, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence of this case, i.e., ① at the time the victim was investigated by the prosecution with the defendant, the defendant made a statement to the effect that the defendant "at the time when the defendant was investigated by the prosecutor, the defendant affixed a seal on the agreement of this case, and changed the word "at the time of temporary payment" to "at the time of the defendant, the defendant did not sell the land to M (Article 416, 417 of the evidence record)" (Article 416, 417 of the evidence record), and the unexpected change of D, it is reasonable to view that the land transaction between D and M did not occur due to the unexpected change of D, and it cannot be deemed that the defendant had been aware of the possibility of land trade between D and M at the time of the preparation of the agreement, as argued by the prosecutor, the prosecutor appears to have caused the land trade without exception due to the unilateral change of the method of payment by the defendant according to the recording of the defendant and D, but the victim also made a record "D".