beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds of appeal is that the Defendants concealed the facts in which they participated and filed the instant accusation was deleted from the key part of the deception. Thus, the chief of the simple circumstance cannot be deemed the director of the division, and Defendant B’s statement to the effect that the J (hereinafter “Defendant employee”) made a statement to the effect that the instant tax withholding certificate was forged by the police as the agent for the accusation, cannot be deemed as an answer to the investigation agency. In light of the fact that the Defendants’ statement to the effect that the Defendants forged the instant tax withholding certificate cannot be deemed as an answer to the prosecution of the investigative agency, even if the Defendants sufficiently recognized the Defendants as “report”, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on mistake or omission, thereby finding the Defendants not guilty of the instant charges
2. Determination
A. The finding of guilt in a criminal trial ought to be based on evidence of probative value, which can lead a judge to feel true enough to have a reasonable doubt. In the absence of such evidence, even if there is no doubt as to the defendant's guilt, it is inevitable to determine it as the benefit of the defendant.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do8675, Mar. 9, 2006). A report on an accusation should be made voluntarily by the investigative agency, etc., and making a false statement in the process of making an accusation or drawing a statement by an investigative agency, etc. does not constitute an accusation crime. Whether a witness’s statement was made by an investigative agency, etc. should be determined by taking into account the developments leading up to an investigation, the manner and details of questioning by the investigative agency, etc. and answers thereto, the relevance between the facts suspected of an investigation and the statement by a witness, etc.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do4429, Feb. 21, 2014). B.
The court below shall have the Defendants prepare evidence of false income to the personnel management department staff.