beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In light of the lower court’s consistent change of facts and legal doctrine, the Defendant’s consistent statement of the witness F of the lower court, etc., each written diagnosis as stated in the facts charged issued by F cannot be readily concluded as a false medical certificate. Since a small sales contract, which was transferred by the Defendant to the lawsuit at issue, was voluntarily prepared without the Defendant’s involvement, the Defendant did not have prepared each written contract as stated in the facts charged.
In addition, on April 21, 2014, the requirements for the payment of insurance proceeds were amended to pay insurance proceeds even in cases where the economic value as milch cows has decreased due to the reduction of quantity of oil caused by flame retardation, fire-fighting, and all kinds of external diseases, which are not non-permanent impossible on April 21, 2014. However, at the time of the request for the payment of each of the instant insurance proceeds, the above change is not subject to the payment of insurance proceeds, even if each of the instant lawsuits was diagnosed with acute flame retardation or the need for flame retardation, but the victim was only paid insurance proceeds due to a mistake, so the Defendant
B. The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 500,000) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. (1) The fact that a criminal judgment already became final and conclusive on the same factual basis is sufficiently evidence, and thus, it is difficult to adopt a decision on facts in the relevant criminal trial.
Unless there are special circumstances acknowledged, facts contrary to this cannot be recognized (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do11349, Dec. 24, 2009). According to the records, it is recognized that the above summary order was issued and confirmed as it is for the facts that the veterinarian F prepared each of the diagnosis of this case in falsity, and the F made a statement contrary to the facts found in the above summary order in the court of original judgment.
Even if this is supported, it is another objective.