logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2016.08.25 2015노2128
사기
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) is as follows: (a) the process of forming each number map of this case; (b) the name entered in the name of the source list; (c) the amount paid to the Defendant was not verifiable; and (d) the amount paid to the Defendant was difficult to confirm whether it was the amount of credit payment for the number map of this case; and (e) it was difficult to expect that Sgre would pay the credit amount in a normal condition from the beginning; (c) the Defendant was liable for a large number of personal obligations; and (d) other members than Sgres are deemed to have paid the credit amount normally; and (e) the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, notwithstanding the fact that there was a criminal intent to receive the credit amount paid by the damaged person. The judgment of the court below erred by misapprehending the facts, which affected the conclusion of judgment.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. The burden of proving the criminal facts prosecuted in a criminal trial is to be borne by a prosecutor, and the conviction is to be based on evidence with probative value that makes a judge feel true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt of guilt against the defendant, it is inevitable to determine the defendant as the benefit of the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do9633, Nov. 11, 2010). As long as the defendant does not make a confession, the criminal intent of defraudation, which is a subjective element of fraud, should be determined by taking into account objective circumstances such as the financial power of the defendant before and after the crime, etc., the environment, details of the crime, and the process of performing transactions (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do12, Oct. 14, 2005). The establishment of fraud should be determined as at the time of the act, and there is a change in the economic situation after the act.

arrow