beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
Summary of Grounds for Appeal
The Defendant, in misunderstanding of facts, concluded a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with only the authority to conclude a lease contract with the deposit amount of KRW 30 million for the Seoul Jongno-gu Seoul International Building F (hereinafter “F”) from G, by deceiving the victim and making the deposit amount of KRW 60 million (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).
The lower court rejected the credibility of G’s statement consistent with the facts charged, and acquitted the Defendant on the fraud of April 27, 201 among the facts charged in the instant case on the premise that the Defendant was entitled to enter into a lease agreement with a deposit of KRW 60 million.
The court below erred in misconception of facts.
The judgment of the court below shall be reversed on the ground of erroneous determination of unfair sentencing, and the defendant shall be sentenced to the same punishment as that of the court below.
Judgment
The lower court rendered a judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts on the grounds that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone on April 27, 2011 of the instant facts charged cannot be deemed to have been proven beyond reasonable doubt, based on the facts and circumstances stated in its reasoning, and thus, acquitted the Defendant.
The court below stated to the effect that the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below (i.e., maintaining internal relations with G for at least two years after the conclusion of the instant lease agreement; and (ii) at the time of the police investigation, G stated to the effect that “after the lapse of six months from the date of the conclusion of the instant lease agreement, G was aware of the fact that the deposit of the instant lease agreement was 60 million won from the Defendant, but did not ask the Defendant where the deposit was used at the time,” (Evidence No. 109 pages, 112 pages), and that it was later known that the Defendant received the lease deposit beyond the scope of his/her power of attorney.