beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. According to the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, even though the Defendant, as stated in the facts charged in the instant case, was found to have taken the charge of deceiving the victim as well as deceiving 3.01 Domonds by deceiving the victim as stated in the victim test.
2. In the process of the appellate court’s trial, there was no new objective reason that could affect the formation of a documentary evidence, and the first instance court’s judgment was clearly erroneous.
Where there is no reasonable ground to deem that the argument leading to the fact-finding is remarkably unfair due to the violation of logical and empirical rules to maintain the judgment as it is, the judgment on the fact-finding of the first instance court shall not be reversed without permission (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031, Mar. 22, 2017). The lower court, consistent with the Defendant’s argument, stated that ① the witness F of the lower court, in conformity with the Defendant’s argument, did not pay the Damond purchase price to the Defendant, offset the payment and the Defendant’s claim against the Defendant; ② the Damond three out of the Damond three received by the Defendant was unable to sell, and the Damond’s value was special to the extent that the Defendant received the Damond in the instant case, while making a false statement by the Defendant.
(3) The Defendant received the sales proceeds of the said Damond because there is no such data as the Defendant had obtained the said Damond.
In full view of the circumstances stated in its reasoning, including the fact that there is no evidence that the above Damond was used in accord and satisfaction with its own obligation, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to readily conclude that the Defendant acquired the Damond as stated in the facts charged in the instant case, and that the Defendant was acquitted.
The judgment of the court below is the same.