logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2020.03.24 2019노1159
석유및석유대체연료사업법위반
Text

All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. The lower court found the Defendants not guilty of all the facts charged of this case, even though the Defendants received and kept them with knowledge of the fact that they are fake petroleum products, and sold them.

2. Determination

A. The burden of proof for the criminal facts prosecuted in a criminal trial is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction is to be based on the evidence of probative value that makes the judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, the defendant is suspected to be guilty, even if there is no such evidence.

Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.

(1) In order to determine the possibility of the occurrence of a crime, a subjective element of the constituent element of a crime refers to a case where dolusent intent is acknowledged under the table that the possibility of the occurrence of the crime is uncertain, and where it is acceptable. In order to have dolusent intent, there is a perception of the possibility of the occurrence of the crime, as well as an internal intent that permits the risk of the crime. Whether the actor has accepted the possibility of the occurrence of the crime should be determined based on the specific circumstances, such as the form of the act and the situation of the act, etc. performed outside, rather than depending on the statement of the offender. In light of how to assess the possibility of the occurrence of the crime, the psychological condition should be confirmed from the standpoint of the offender. In such a case, the burden of proof on the existence of dolusive intent, which is the subjective element of the crime, is the prosecutor.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Do74 delivered on May 14, 2004, etc.). B.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court of first instance, the defendant B operates, and the defendant A actually manages the gas station below D'.

arrow