beta
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, although the defendant could fully recognize the fact that he/she acquired a total of 62 million won from the complainant and the intention of defraudation as stated in the facts charged of this case, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. In a judgment, the burden of proof for the criminal facts prosecuted in a criminal trial is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction is to be based on the evidence of probative value that makes the judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, the suspicion of guilt is between the defendant, even if there is no such evidence.
Even if the interests of the defendant are to be determined by the interests of the defendant, this is also the same in recognizing the criminal intent, which is a subjective element of fraud.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Do12 Decided October 14, 2005, and Supreme Court Decision 2010Do14731 Decided December 23, 2010, etc.). Furthermore, fraud is established by deceiving another person and inducing such dispositive act to obtain property or pecuniary gain by inducing such dispositive act. As such, fraud requires deception and mistake by the defrauded and the dispositive act of the defrauded, and there is causation between them.
(2) The court below acquitted the Defendant on the ground that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to readily conclude that the Defendant had obtained money by deceiving the complainant, and thus, constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime. The court below acquitted the Defendant on the ground that the facts charged in this case constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime.
Examining the written judgment of the court below by comparing it with the records, the evidence of the court below is examined.