beta
Text
All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.
Reasons
1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal (fact-finding) each of the evidence of the court below, even if Defendant B received money from the victim D, he was not guilty of the facts that Defendant B received KRW 21 million from the victim D by sending the proceeds through a business trip, even though he did not have the intent or ability to pay the proceeds, and even if the Defendants received money from the victim G, even though he did not have the intent or ability to pay the shares and the proceeds of the H wedding hall business, he could have the victim G wired the amount of KRW 20 million to I, thereby having the victim G acquire property benefits equivalent to the same amount. The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts or by violating the rules of evidence, which affected the conclusion of the judgment
2. Determination
A. The burden of proof of criminal facts prosecuted in a criminal trial is the prosecutor, and the conviction is based on the evidence of probative value, which makes the judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, the defendant is suspected of guilty, 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 2002Do5662 delivered on December 24, 2002, etc.). B.
Based on these legal principles, the court below stated the reasons in detail on the part of the judgment "2.2. judgment of the court below". ① As to the facts charged against Defendant B’s victim D, D supplied food to Defendant B during the wedding business trip after he remitted the amount of KRW 21 million to Defendant B, and in light of the circumstances that he did not receive additional orders due to the complaint of the mixed owners for food during the food supply, other evidence submitted by the prosecutor is insufficient to recognize the facts charged against Defendant B, and ② as to the facts charged against Defendant B’s victim G, the defendants made a share sales contract to G.