beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the statement from the victim F, K's investigative agency to the original trial is specific and consistent; (b) the defendant was in excess of his/her obligation at the time of receiving money from the victim; (c) the defendant used money from the victim for any purpose other than the victim; (d) the existence of the defendant's claim against the third party is not objectively verified; (e) the defendant's claim against the third party is unlikely to be realized; and (e) the defendant's testimony that the defendant provided money in the name of investment is not reliable; and (e) there is no credibility, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of the facts charged of this case by deceiving the victim, thereby affecting the conclusion
2. Determination:
A. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged of the instant case on the ground that there is no evidence to support the fact that the Defendant, only by the evidence submitted by the victim and K investigative agency and the prosecutor, including the statement in the lower court, had the intent or ability to repay the debt borrowed from the victim, or that there was no other evidence to recognize that the Defendant acquired money from the victim.
B. (1) When an appellate court intends to re-examine the first instance judgment after re-evaluation of the first instance judgment, inasmuch as there is no objective reason that may affect the formation of a conviction in the course of a trial, there is a reasonable ground to deem that the first instance judgment was clearly erroneous, or that the argument leading to the acknowledgement of facts is considerably unfair due to the violation of logical and empirical rules, etc., and without such exceptional circumstance, the court should not reverse without permission the judgment on the acknowledgement of facts of the first instance judgment without permission (see Supreme Court Decision 201 March 22, 2017).