Defendant

All appeals filed by A and prosecutor are dismissed.

As of February 11, 2019, the summary of the public prosecutor’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts (not guilty part of the grounds against the defendant) was prepared by the Defendants who assaulted and threatened the victim to use the 50 million fake loan certificate (hereinafter “the above loan certificate of this case”) and was based on February 11, 2019, the obligations owed by the victim against the Defendants are merely the total amount of principal and interest 46,191,904 won (the principal 37,013,704 won and the amount calculated by deducting the amount of 40,000 won from the total amount of interest 10% per month from the date of each loan to February 11, 2019).

Therefore, it should be deemed that the Defendants acquired financial benefits exceeding the existing principal and interest of the loan by receiving the instant loan certificate from the victim.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendants of the injury by robbery on the ground that the Defendants did not obtain property benefits is erroneous.

Judgment

In light of the fact that the Criminal Appeal Court has the nature as a post facto trial even after the fact that it has the nature of the post facto trial and the spirit of the de facto direct examination as prescribed by the Criminal Procedure Act, in a case where the first instance court rendered a not guilty verdict on the facts charged on the ground that there is insufficient evidence to exclude a reasonable doubt after undergoing the examination of evidence, such as a witness, if it does not reach the extent to sufficiently resolve the reasonable doubt caused by the first instance trial as a result of the examination of the appellate court, such circumstance alone alone does not lead to the conclusion that there was an error of misunderstanding of facts in the judgment of the first instance court that lack of proof of crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do14516, Apr. 28, 2016). The lower court should not acknowledge the guilty of the facts charged on the ground that the sum of principal and interest on loans owed by the victim exceeds the amount of debt 50 million won as stated in the loan certificate, and thus, the Defendants exceeded the existing claim