beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (based on factual errors) was acquired by the victim, notwithstanding the fact that the victim B did not have the intent or ability to produce the destroyed season according to the content requested by the victim B.
2. Determination
A. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged in the instant case on the ground that it is difficult to recognize that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was proven without any reasonable doubt that the Defendant was guilty of the charge of the instant case, on the grounds that ① the contract for the production of the destroyed germs was concluded verbally between the Defendant and the victim; ② the Defendant received KRW 13 million as part of the price from the victim; ② the Defendant received twice or three times the Defendant was in the workplace of the operation of the Nam-si system in the Nam-si District Office where the destroyed germs will be used; ③ the Defendant sent the machinery drawing prepared by the Defendant to the victim by e-mail; ③ the victim did not raise any objection to the drawing; ④ the Defendant appears to have actually produced the destroyed germs; ⑤ the Defendant appears to have actually produced the destroyed germs; ⑤ D using the destroyed germs was not directly viewed by the Defendant’s explanation as to the standards and did not meet the required standards, and it was difficult to find that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was the
B. In addition to the circumstances of the court below's judgment, if the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the court below were examined, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of mistake of facts as otherwise alleged by the prosecutor in the judgment below.
The prosecutor's assertion is without merit.
The Defendant submitted the content of purchasing material, such as ice lease and steel, at the trial. This conforms to the change that the Defendant directly made the destroyed season of this case.
In addition, the defendant has much experience and knowledge about the production of the destroyed season, and is capable of producing the destroyed season of this case.