beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
Summary of Grounds for Appeal
At the time of the conclusion of the instant lease agreement, D did not err by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby finding the Defendant not guilty on the ground that the Defendant’s accusation was not false, which led to the conclusion of the instant lease agreement, on the following grounds: “At the time of the conclusion of the instant lease agreement, D may enjoy a large amount of profits from the lease of a shopping mall because it purchased a shopping complex suitable for the shopping mall and promptly rents the shopping mall; “I would create an access road to the parking lot and a right-to-door, etc.;” and “I would make an access to the parking lot and a right-to-door, etc.”
Judgment
The evidence that there is a crime in criminal procedure must be presented by the prosecutor, and the criminal facts must be proven by the judge to have high probability without reasonable doubt, and if there is no evidence to form such a high probability, the defendant is suspected to be guilty even if there is no evidence to establish such a degree.
Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.
Comprehensively taking account of the circumstances as indicated in the lower judgment’s reasoning that were duly admitted and examined by the lower court, reasonable doubt exists to believe D’s statement as it is, and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, or the agreement on the Defendant’s assertion was not indicated in the contract even though the agreement was the main content of the instant lease agreement, and there was no fact that the Defendant asserted D prior to the submission of the written complaint, and the Suwon District Court Decision 2012No483 decided Sept. 11, 2012 (which became final and conclusive October 19, 2012) rejected the Defendant’s assertion in light of the circumstances, it is insufficient to find the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged.
However, in the above judgment, when the defendant directly operates an agency, the expenses for attracting brands shall be paid.