beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
Summary of Grounds for Appeal
Although the Defendant conspiredd with B to engage in a speculative business in the instant fishing place, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the ground of misconception of facts.
Judgment
The evidence that there is a crime in criminal procedure must be presented by the prosecutor, and the criminal facts must be proven by the judge to have high probability without reasonable doubt, and if there is no evidence to form such a high probability, the defendant is suspected to be guilty even if there is no evidence to establish such a degree.
Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.
According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant is the husband and wife B, and the contact was constantly exchanged while being separated, and there was a doubt that the defendant would not engage in a speculative business in collusion with B, on the ground that the defendant was witness F of the court below witness F of this case.
However, according to the above evidence, the circumstances as stated in the judgment of the court below can be recognized, and even if F’s statement at the court below in this case was based on F’s legal statement, F only three times a week in the instant fishing place in January or February, 2013, and the Defendant appeared to have taken up only three times in total, and the Defendant did not regard the carb, and the part on which the Defendant stated a medical specialist from the Defendant in the police officer G’s legal statement of the court below in the judgment of the court below in the judgment of the court below is hard to conclude that the Defendant operated the instant fishing place business along with B is admissible, and even if admissible, the Defendant appears to have made such statement with the knowledge that the Defendant should be responsible as the nominal owner as stated in the judgment of the court below.
Therefore, the court below acquitted the defendant on the ground that the evidence presented by the prosecutor alone is difficult to recognize the facts charged of this case.