beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The gist of the grounds for appeal lies in the fact that the Defendant was punished for a violation of the Act on Electronic Financial Transactions in relation to the so-called “work loan.” Among the instant crimes, the bank entered false information in “the table of diagnosis of financial fraud” in the “the crime of this case,” and there was a strong doubt as to the conversation between the name and the needy person, not the crime of telephone financial fraud, and thus, there was a conclusive or doluence in aiding and abetting the Defendant to commit the crime of telephone financial fraud in light of such circumstances.
However, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case on a different premise is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. The judgment of the court below on the grounds of appeal is not sufficient to find guilty of this part of the charges by the evidence presented by the prosecutor, on the grounds of the same circumstances as the statement in the 9th half to the end of the fifth part of the judgment below's sentence. In addition, according to the records, the court below's aforementioned judgment is just and consistent with the records, and it is consistent with the above judgment of the court below. In addition, according to the records, the defendant's previous conviction and the behavior patterns of the facts charged in this case are different, and in light of the dialogue between the defendant and the non-indicted in India, the bank made a false statement on the financial fraud prevention check by deceiving the
There is room to see that there was also an uneasy about the crime of telephone finance fraud, and the response was received from the victim that the collection business was normally carried out due to the operation through the remote control method even though there was an apprehension about the crime of telephone finance fraud.
The facts charged in this case were proven without reasonable doubt, in full view of such circumstances, since the remaining cash was delivered to the person under the pretext of deception.
In the same purport, the judgment of the court below is erroneous.