206No586 Fraud

○○○ (OCeded○○), Real Estate brokerage business

In the case of a residential grace, the ancient Dong-Eup

Permanent address Mao-eo-Eup Mao-dong

Defendant

Yang-○

Attorneys Yellow 00 (National Election)

Changwon District Court Decision 2005Ma641 Decided March 22, 2006

April 19, 2007

The lower judgment is reversed. The Defendant is acquitted.

1. The lower court recognized the Defendant’s statement and the protocol of interrogation of the Defendant prepared by the prosecutor (including the part on which the Defendant stated ○○○○○ and ○○○○○○○○) as evidence, and provided 100 won for a promissory note discount of KRW 20,000,000,000, which is 10 won for a total of KRW 20,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won and KRW 10,000,000,000,000,000 won and KRW 20,000,000,000,000,000,000 won and KRW 10,000,00,000,000,000,000,000 won and KRW 10,000,00,00,00,00.

2. We examine ex officio in consideration of the grounds for appeal by the defendant. According to the first trial records of the court below, the defendant stated to the effect that he was aware of facts recorded in the facts charged, but he did not intend to obtain deception. According to the statement made by the defendant in this court, the defendant did not make confession in the court of the court below. According to the statement made by the defendant in this court, the prosecutor did not instruct and explain the suspect's interrogation protocol (including the part in Gin○ and Ma○○○○) prepared by the prosecutor in the court of the court below. The presiding judge did not notify the defendant who appeared without a defense counsel of the summary, and did not lawfully examine the evidence of the protocol, and there was no other evidence to prove that the defendant was legitimate as evidence of the protocol, so the court below reversed the judgment below and decided again as follows, pursuant to Article 364 (2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

3. The gist of the facts charged against the Defendant is the same as the facts stated in paragraph (1) recognized by the lower court. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged in light of the statement made by the Defendant and ○○○ in this court, the statement made by ○○○○ in the fourth protocol of the trial, the statement made by 00 in the fourth protocol of the lower court, and the statement made by ○0 in the fourth protocol of the trial, and the records related to the statement, ① the Defendant received a discount on nine occasions including the Promissory Notes from the victim during the period from February 2, 2002 to September 8, 2002, all of the Promissory Notes except the instant promissory Notes have been normally approved, ② ○○○, a business Vice Minister of ○○ Korea, also accepted the Promissory Notes from the victim and signed and sealed it as an endorser. ③ The victim did not agree to the remainder of the facts charged, including the obligation of this case, with the Defendant’s ○○○○○ Office’s 300 million won and 160 million won.

Judges, Gangseo-gu et al.

Judge Lee Jae-Un,

Judges Park Jin-young