beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal consistent with the facts charged in this case from the investigative agency to the court of the court below. The former lessee of the commercial building of this case also made a consistent statement from the investigative agency to the court of the court below that “any ownership of singing facilities exists, and no defendant is the defendant.” In light of the following: (a) the above statement conforms to the victim’s statement; and (b) the lease agreement entered into with D on August 12, 2013 with regard to the commercial building of this case and the contents of the statement of transaction details related thereto, etc., the victim and the JJ statement are credibility; (c) comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, including the victim and the statement of the JJ, the fact that the defendant deceivings the victim as stated in the facts charged, thereby acquiring KRW 19 million, as well as the evidence submitted by the prosecutor. However, the court below is insufficient to prove the facts charged.
The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. The lower court determined that the Defendant did not have any management of the entire singing facilities of this case on the sole basis of the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor (in particular, the victim I and J’s occasional agencies and legal statements) based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, based on the overall circumstances as indicated in its reasoning.
It is difficult to conclude otherwise, and it was not guilty of the facts charged on the grounds that there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant had received money by deceiving the victim.
B. 1) In light of the spirit of substantial direct deliberation under the Criminal Procedure Act, the issue of credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court in light of the contents of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined in the first instance court.