logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2020.05.06 2020노134
사기
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of the gist of the grounds for appeal, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, even though the defendant was found not guilty, in collusion with the members of the organization involved in the phishing crime in collusion with the victim about a total of eight million won.

2. Determination

A. Where a criminal defendant denies his/her criminal intent, which is a subjective element of a constituent element of a crime, the criminal intent itself cannot be objectively proved, and therefore, it is inevitable to prove it by means of proving indirect or circumstantial facts relevant to the criminal intent in light of the nature of an object.

At this time, what constitutes an indirect or circumstantial fact should be determined by a reasonable method of determining the link of facts with a thorough observation or analysis based on normal empirical rule.

In addition, the willful negligence, which is a kind of intentional negligence, has the awareness of the possibility of the occurrence of a crime, unlike gross negligence, and further has the intention of internal deliberation to allow the risk of a crime.

Considering how the general public can assess the possibility of occurrence of criminal facts based on the specific circumstances, such as the form of an act and the situation of an act that was externally revealed without depending on the statement of the offender, the psychological state of the offender should be ratified from the standpoint of the offender.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2016Do15470 Decided January 12, 2017, etc.). Meanwhile, inasmuch as the establishment of criminal facts ought to be based on strict evidence with probative value, which makes a judge not to have any reasonable doubt, to the extent that such conviction would lead to such conviction, the prosecutor’s proof is insufficient to sufficiently reach the extent that the Defendant’s assertion or defense is inconsistent or unreasonable.

arrow