2014 Highest 4587 Fraudulent

A person shall be appointed.

Residence

Reference domicile

Mobile (Lawsuits) and Kim Woo (Public Trial)

Attorney 000

March 11, 2016

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Facts charged

On August 2010, the Defendant, at the Defendant’s house located at ○○○○○○, sent the victim B, who was commissioned by the Defendant, to purchase an installation on behalf of the Defendant, approximately KRW 10,00 per 10,00 of “PICNOL GTS - AS”. The Defendant sent the Defendant’s photo of the said machine (PRFOMAINVICE) and the photo of the said machine to the victim’s e-mail as if he/she sold the said machine.

However, the defendant did not have the intention or ability to sell the above machinery, and after receiving each purchase price from the victim, he thought that he would display a part of the "so-called 'so-called 's floor', which is only from 400 to 500 U.S. market price.

On September 8, 2010, the Defendant transferred USD 8,400 to the foreign exchange bank account in the name of “YINERYINNAL” operated by the Defendant for the payment of the above installed installation (in exchange conversion amount: USD 9, 357, 600, USD 114 won) from the victim.

From that time to December 11, 2010, the Defendant received a transfer of USD 494,90 in total from the victims ($ 551, 418, 600, 500 in total) by deceiving the said victim, victim C, and D, in the same manner as the list of crimes in attached Table, from that time.

Accordingly, the defendant, by deceiving victims, acquired financial benefits.

2. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion

Although the Defendant agreed to sell the instant machines to the victims and received the payment, sending machines different from those contracted with the victims to the U.S. is safe-○○ who is residing in the U.S., and the money received from the victims was deducted from his brokerage commission and paid to the ○○.

3. Determination

In order to recognize the admissibility of evidence pursuant to Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act even when a statement by a person other than the defendant, such as a statement of witness, has not been proven by his/her statement in the court, it constitutes a case where the person who has made the statement is unable to make a statement by his/her appearance in the public trial due to death, illness, residence abroad, unknown whereabouts, or any other similar cause, and the nature of the document has to be proved to be especially reliable. The term "foreign residence" in this context is insufficient only to the extent that there is a person in need of the statement in a foreign country, and it is impossible for the person who has made the statement to be present in the public trial and to have the possibility of future departure, and if it is probable that the person who has made the statement will appear in the public trial to be present in a foreign country or in the near future and to be present in a foreign country for a prolonged period of 00 days, he/she shall be present at the time and place of departure from the court and shall be present in advance, and if it is possible to make the statement to be present in the court.

However, according to the records, since the victims, B, C, and D temporarily stayed in the country of India for the statement of damage of this case, etc., the victims, and thus, it was sufficiently anticipated that they could not return to India, and that they could not return to India. In order to secure the victims' official testimony and court testimony, the victims should have returned to Korea again and should be informed that there is a need to perform legal truth in order to secure the victims' official testimony. However, there is no circumstance that such an investigation was conducted at the investigation stage. In light of the fact that the prosecutor applied for a witness on May 20, 2015 for the above victims and withdrawn the application for a witness on November 18, 2015, and that there is insufficient reason to view that the above victims were present at the official inquiry, and that there is no evidence of each part of the statement made by the police officers, the part of the statement made by the police officers against the defendant, and the part of the statement made by C in the three questioning protocol made by the police officers against the defendant is inadmissible.

Meanwhile, it is recognized that the prosecutor’s office is able to attend a public trial in currency with ○○○ in the process of a public trial, but it was found that ○○ entered the Republic of Korea on September 4, 2014 and left the Republic of Korea on September 16, 2014. The fact that ○○ entered the Republic of Korea on January 28, 2015 and returned to the Republic of Korea on January 31, 2015 is recognized. The fact that ○○○, ○○○, etc. applied as a witness during a public trial, and there is no reason to deem that all methods of having the relevant witnesses attend and make statements in a public trial.

In addition, Article 316(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act requires special conditions. In order to realize the principle of due process required by the Constitution in criminal proceedings, the formation of a trial on the substance of the case shall be based on the principle of substantial direct examination and hearsay rule that the cross-examination on the original evidence before the judge should be conducted through the examination of evidence, but in special circumstances where the aforementioned principle cannot be carried out due to the death of the person making the original statement, "when it is proved that the statement or preparation was made in a particularly reliable state," in other words, only when there is little possibility of false intervention in preparing the contents or protocol of the statement or documents, and when specific and external circumstances are proved to guarantee the credibility or voluntariness of the statement, the admissibility of evidence should be exceptionally acknowledged. Therefore, in order to recognize the admissibility of evidence pursuant to Article 316(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, it is insufficient merely because there is no obvious procedural error in the process of the statement or there is no specific circumstance to suspect the voluntariness of the statement.

However, according to the records, ○○ stated to the effect that he purchased used machinery requested by the Defendant and sent it to ○○○, etc. through a truck transport company, and that all of the container work, loading, transportation, document procedures, etc. were processed in the ○○○○○○○○, a logistics company operated by ○○○○, etc. and a shipping company, and the Defendant asserted that ○○ had sent any machinery different from the machinery arbitrarily ordered by ○○, and thus, the Defendant’s statement of ○○ is inconsistent with each other, as the Defendant alleged that ○○ had sent the machinery different from the machinery arbitrarily ordered by ○○, and there is a conflict between the position on the responsibility of the instant case, and there is a conflict between the Defendant and ○○○○’s statement on the amount delivered by the Defendant’s side, which is inconsistent with the Defendant’

Comprehensively taking account of the consistent refusal of the statements made by an investigative agency after entering the country, there is no evidence to prove that the above statements made by the head of the internal investigation agency and the head of the internal investigation agency are recognized specific and external circumstances to the extent that the cross-examination is not necessary, to the extent that the above statements are not necessary.

Therefore, among the witness E's testimony, the contents of the above victims and the ○○○'s statements are inadmissible. Each facsimile statement to the head of An○, each facsimile statement to the head of An○○, each written statement to the head of An○, each written statement to the head of An○, and each written statement to the head of An○○, the written statement to the head of An○, and the written statement to

In addition, each investigation report on the contents of the above victims, the Ansan○○, the head of ○○, and the contents of their statements in an investigation agency and each investigation report on the contents of the statements, and the defendant has consented to the evidence, and thus,

In addition, the remaining evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is difficult to deem that each of the facts charged in the instant case was proven without any reasonable doubt, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Chief of Justice