logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.06.21 2019노1064
사기등
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The misunderstanding of facts was actually conducted and part of the construction cost was used.

However, in full view of the fact that the Defendant had no economic ability to normally carry out construction works at the time of the contract, the Defendant had dolusent intent to acquire the construction cost, taking into account the following: (a) the Defendant concealed the fact that the Defendant had no economic capacity to normally carry out construction works; (b) the considerable part of the construction cost

The judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant about the fraud is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (7 million won of fine) is too unjustifiable and unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. (1) The burden of proving the facts charged in a criminal trial is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction is to be based on the evidence with probative value sufficient to cause a judge to have a reasonable doubt that the facts charged are true, so insofar as there is no such evidence, the doubt of guilt against the defendant even if there is no such evidence.

Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do8675, Mar. 9, 2006). In addition, in a case where an appellate court intends to re-examine the first instance court’s judgment after an ex post facto and ex post facto determination, the first instance court clearly erred in the determination of the probative value of evidence, even though there was no new objective reason that could affect the formation of an ex post facto

There should be reasonable circumstances to deem that the argument leading to the fact-finding is considerably unfair because it is against logical and empirical rules.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031 Decided March 22, 2017 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031, Mar. 22, 2017).

arrow