logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2020.06.18 2020노2277
위조공문서행사등
Text

All appeals by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. According to the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, the defendant's negligence of aiding and abetting fraud among the facts charged is recognized.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court of the first instance that acquitted the defendant of the above facts charged is erroneous for misconception of facts on the ground that the defendant did not have the intention of aiding and abetting fraud.

B. The punishment of the court of first instance (six months of imprisonment) against the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. As to the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts, Article 307(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that “The acknowledgement of facts should reach a proof to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt.”

Therefore, the conviction in a criminal trial should be based on evidence of probative value, which leads a judge to the conviction that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt.

In a case where the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone does not reach the degree of conviction, the determination should be made with the benefit of the defendant even if there is a suspicion of guilt.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Do1405, Sept. 1, 1992; 2016Do21231, Oct. 31, 2017). The court of first instance acquitted the Defendant of the fraud of the charges on the grounds that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is not sufficient to exclude reasonable doubt that the Defendant had the intention to facilitate the criminal act of using the name and non-scaming, as stated in the facts charged.

Examining the above judgment of the court of first instance in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, closely comparing the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court of first instance, it is reasonable to determine that the court of first instance is not guilty of this part of the facts charged on the grounds as stated in its holding.

arrow