beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals filed by A and prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Although there was a somewhat change in Defendant B’s statement made by the prosecutor (the fact-finding or the misapprehension of the legal principle), it is possible to make a mistake as it stated at the time when six months or more have elapsed since it was made on the date of the crime. Thus, the fact-finding can only be predicted based on objective evidence, such as mobile phone telephone conversations, and it cannot be viewed as a ground for rejecting the credibility of the statement, and the fact that Defendant B had no criminal record on criminal punishment cannot be readily conclude that the crime of this case was first administered, and the fact that Defendant B requested Defendant A to administer the Mepta (hereinafter referred to as “philopon”) on several occasions, it is more natural that the monetary content is more natural, and the lower court, on account of the circumstance that it is difficult to accept, rejected the credibility of Defendant B’s statement and found Defendant B not guilty of this part of the facts charged, and the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on probative value.
B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court to Defendant A (one year and six months of imprisonment, additional collection of KRW 300,000) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination on the grounds for appeal
A. (1) The prosecutor bears the burden of proving the facts charged in a criminal trial, and the conviction should be based on the evidence of probative value, which makes the judge feel true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, the suspicion of guilt is 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 Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1151 Decided July 22, 2010 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1151, Jul. 22, 2010). (2) The lower court held that Defendant A administered philopon on May 23, 2012; that Defendant B received philopon on July 8, 2012; and that Defendant B’s philopon on May 23, 2012.