The case holding that the facts charged of fraud, which constitutes a crime of fraud and habitual fraud for which judgment became final and conclusive, falls within the scope of res judicata effect of the final and conclusive judgment

The date, place, motive, means, and method of the crime are identical, and if the crime was repeated at least eight times within the short term, it shall be deemed the crime committed by the Defendant’s realization of the wall of fraud. Thus, in relation to the crime committed by fraud and the crime committed by fraud of this case, the res judicata effect of the above final judgment shall also extend to the charges of simple fraud of this case in relation to the relation between the crime committed by fraud of which the judgment became final and conclusive and the crime committed by fraud of this case is a single comprehensive crime committed by habitual fraud under the substantive law.

Article 326 subparagraph 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 351 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court en banc Decision 77Do3564 delivered on February 14, 1978 (Gong1978, 11094) 81Do69 delivered on April 14, 1981 (Gong1981, 13808), 82Do2829, 82Do612 delivered on April 26, 1983 (Gong1983, 926), 83Do2609 delivered on December 13, 1983 (Gong1984, 234), 84Do1322 delivered on July 24, 1984 (Gong1984, 1518), 88Do1838, 1988 (Gong1868, 1968, 2888, 286, 2888, 1986).

Defendant

Prosecutor

Daejeon District Court Decision 87No566 delivered on April 21, 1989

The appeal is dismissed.

1. Prosecutor’s ground of appeal No. 1

The court below held that the defendant was sentenced to five years of imprisonment at the Daejeon District Court on Jan. 14, 1986 and the judgment became final and conclusive, in light of the following: (a) as if he had the intention and ability to actively assist the above construction work, he deceptions the victims as if he had such intent and ability; and (b) under the name of cash, borrowed money, teaching expenses, etc. from the victim and two other persons for six times from Sep. 16, 1983 to Aug. 15, 1984, the defendant acquired property equivalent to 615,330,403 won in total, such as bill, check, etc.; and (c) the defendant acquired the same property from the victim during the period from Sep. 14, 1986 to the same crime, the court below held that each of the above fraud charges for which the judgment became final and conclusive; and (d) the defendant's motive of the crime of fraud and the crime of fraud under the Act, the defendant's motive of the crime of fraud and the injury to the victim.

In comparison with relevant evidence, we affirm the judgment of the court below as just and just. (See en banc Decision 77Do3564, Feb. 14, 1978; Supreme Court Decision 81Do69, Apr. 14, 1981; Supreme Court Decision 82Do2829, Apr. 26, 1983; Supreme Court Decision 83Do2609, Dec. 13, 1983; Supreme Court Decision 84Do20, Mar. 13, 1984; Supreme Court Decision 84Do1322, Jul. 24, 1984; Supreme Court Decision 87Do2193, Feb. 23, 198; Supreme Court Decision 88Do1637, Nov. 8, 198; Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1637, Dec. 16, 200).

2. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 2

The court below rejected the evidence that corresponds to the fabrication of private document and the exercise of the same in the facts charged of this case, and affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance which acquitted the facts charged of this case on the ground that there is no proof of the facts charged, and compared the relevant evidence with the records and review, the judgment of the court below is just, and it cannot be deemed that there is an error of law that found the facts in violation of

We cannot accept the issue because it criticizes the selection of evidence and the recognition of facts belonging to all the court below.

3. Therefore, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)