beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that each of the facts of this case submitted by the defendant in civil litigation with the victim, etc. was prepared by the defendant's inducement, but the court below rejected the testimony of the victim and witness and acquitted the defendant without reasonable grounds.
2. Determination
A. The Defendant, around 2005, engaged in a partnership with the victim H and T (i.e., the “I” stated in the indictment and the judgment of the court below, as it is apparent that the “I” stated in the indictment and the judgment of the court below is a clerical error in the “T,” and all of them were corrected to “T”).
On October 3, 2006, when the Defendant sold the said workplace to the J due to business deterioration, the Defendant filed a lawsuit claiming compensation for damages against the victim and T which led the business operation and sale of the said workplace at the Incheon District Court around May 3, 2006, and the victim filed a lawsuit claiming compensation for losses against the Defendant and H.
When the victim performs the main construction work at the above workplace, the defendant knew that K staff L, the opposite contractual party, lent M, paid a total of KRW 24.7 million, and that the victim paid the price, and that 1.9 million out of the construction cost of the main outlet at the place of business, 1.5 million out of the total construction cost of the main outlet at the place of business to O, and paid the remainder in cash, and that the remainder was paid in cash, Q and the actual transaction amount of the P representative Q and the actual victim was 20 million.
Nevertheless, the Defendant’s false statement that “it does not have any direct transaction with the victim” received from M Representative R (Evidence No. 21) and that “S” as stated in the indictment and the written judgment of the court below is a clerical error of “O,” and that “the Defendant was paid only KRW 1.9 million as the transaction price,” which was threatened by the victim to report to the tax office using the drug that did not issue the tax invoice at the time of the transaction.