Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is aware that the defendant is likely to not receive all or part of the insurance money in the event of a traffic accident caused by the same criminal act as the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (joint dangerous act), and that the victim, Dong Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. does not reveal the circumstances leading up to the occurrence of the instant accident. Therefore, even though it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant had the willful negligence of deception, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on willful negligence in fraud, thereby acquitted the defendant on the fraud and attempted
2. The subjective element of the constituent element of a crime, which is not the case where the possibility of occurrence of the crime is expressed as uncertain and it is accepted. The possibility of occurrence of the crime is recognized in order to have dolusence, and further, there is an intent to deliberate on the risk of occurrence of the crime in order to allow the risk of occurrence of the crime. Whether or not the offender has accepted the possibility of occurrence of the crime must be determined by considering how the possibility of occurrence of the crime can be assessed if the general public is based on the specific circumstances, such as the form of the act and the situation of the act committed outside, which are not dependent on the statement of the offender. In such a case, the prosecutor bears the burden of proving the existence of dolusence, which is the subjective element of the crime charged. The burden of proving the existence of the crime committed, which is the subjective element of the crime charged, should be based on evidence with probative value, which makes the judge not have any reasonable doubt, and therefore, if there is no such evidence, it is inevitable that the defendant's interest can be determined even if there is a doubt about the defendant's interest.
Supreme Court Decision 200