logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2013.05.31 2013노507
사기
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor to the gist of the grounds for appeal, the defendant could recognize the fact that the defendant deceivings the victims as stated in the facts charged, thereby deceiving them.

Nevertheless, the court below acquitted the defendant of the facts charged. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or by misunderstanding facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The burden of proof for the criminal facts prosecuted in a criminal trial for judgment is to be borne by a public prosecutor, and the conviction is to be based on evidence with probative value that makes a judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, the suspicion of guilt is between the defendant, even if there is no such evidence.

Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.

(2) On February 24, 2006, the court below stated that the victims should receive money from the victims as stated in the facts charged of this case, and the following circumstances acknowledged by the records of this case, namely, the J and the victims, who introduced the defendant to the victims, are state-owned land at the time of the conclusion of each contract of this case, and the defendant was aware of the fact that they were using the land, and the court made a statement to the effect that they were disadvantageous to the defendant, there are many transaction parties at the time of the conclusion of each contract of this case, and the management status was imposed. In light of this, the court stated that there was a need for the defendant to receive money from the victims until there was a need for deceiving the victims as stated in the facts charged of this case. The victim G deposit is a person working at an attorney-at-law, such as M, who lent the down payment to the victims, and the defendant had already been aware of the fact that they were using the land at the time of November 201.

arrow