beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence presented by the prosecutor in the gist of the grounds for appeal, the court below acquitted the Defendants of the facts charged in this case, although the Defendants conspired with D, F, and G and could sufficiently recognize the fact that they received property from the said company by deceiving the victim J Co., Ltd.
2. Determination
A. At around 07:40 on October 13, 201, the summary of the facts charged in the instant case: (a) around 07:40, the Defendants were faced with an accident that D driving a vehicle on the front of Gangnam-gu Seoul on the road; and (b) Defendant A, Defendant B, F, and G going on the next lane while boarding the said vehicle, and that the said vehicle was changed, and came to an accident that could be somewhat contacted with H driving I’s Iland Kaches.
Although the above accident was insufficient to the extent that the Defendants, D, F, and G did not receive hospital treatment due to the lack of shock, the Defendants, D, F, and G were willing to claim insurance for the damage compensation under the name of the insurance company, such as medical expenses, as an opportunity.
Therefore, the Defendants, in collusion with D, F, and G as above, deceiving the victim company by claiming insurance proceeds on the ground that the victim J Co., Ltd. caused the said traffic accident. Accordingly, the Defendants received a total of KRW 5,700,000 from October 13, 201 to November 17, 201, including medical expenses, from around October 13, 2011 to around November 201.
B. The burden of proving the facts charged in a criminal trial of the judgment of the court below is that the prosecutor bears the burden of proving the facts charged, and the conviction of the defendant must be based on the evidence with probative value sufficient to cause the judge to have a reasonable doubt that the facts charged are true. Thus, if there is no such evidence, the suspicion of guilt against the defendant is doubtful.
Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2017Do2697 Decided May 11, 2017, etc.).