logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2012.09.27 2011도5330
특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(횡령) 등
Text

The judgment below

Among them, the part of the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes is reversed.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement)

(a) the formation of a conviction in a criminal trial shall not necessarily be based on direct evidence, but may be based on indirect evidence, but indirect evidence shall not be individually or separately assessed, and shall be evaluated in a comprehensive manner with respect to each other in all respects, and shall undergo a thorough and contradictory argument;

In addition, the probative value of evidence is left to a judge's free judgment, but the judgment should be consistent with logical and empirical rules, and the degree of the formation of conviction to be found guilty in a criminal trial should be sufficient to have reasonable doubt.

However, this does not require any possible doubt to be excluded, and rejection of evidence recognized as probative value by causing a suspicion without any reasonable ground is not allowed beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence. However, the reasonable doubt here refers to a reasonable doubt with respect to the probability of a fact that is inconsistent with the facts that is not in accordance with logical and empirical rules, rather than all questions and correspondences, and it refers to a reasonable doubt with respect to the probability of a fact that is inconsistent with the facts that are not compatible with the facts that are in accordance with the logical and empirical rules. As such, the circumstance favorable to the defendant should be based on the sexual prosecution that is grasped in relation to the fact finding, it cannot be said that the doubt

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do14262, Feb. 24, 2011). B.

The summary of this part of the facts charged is that the defendant, who is the chairperson of the Dmin clan (hereinafter referred to as the "Jin clan"), donated three million won to the clan with the purchase cost of the clan in order to have the clan move its mountain, and purchased the H forest in Suwon-gu, Suwon-si (hereinafter referred to as the "H forest") and then completed the registration of ownership in the name of the clan.

arrow