beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The court below found all of the facts charged of this case not guilty, and the prosecutor filed an appeal only against each of the crimes listed in the annexed list Nos. 1, 5, and 7 of the judgment below among the facts charged of this case, the remaining parts (each of the crimes listed in the annexed list No. 2, 3, 4, and 6) are separated and determined as they are, and excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court.
2. In full view of the consistent statements made by the victim D as well as the statements made by the operator of each vehicle and the F and N, the court below acquitted the Defendant of this part of the charges, despite the fact that the Defendant, as shown in the charges Nos. 1, 5 and 7 of the List of Crimes No. 1, 5 and 7, could recognize the fact that the Defendant deceiving the victim, thereby acquiring pecuniary benefits equivalent to the repair cost from the damaged person, on the contrary,
3. Summary of the facts charged
A. On June 1, 201, the Defendant, No. 1, No. 201, No. 750, No. 1, 2011, was the E industrial company operated by the victim D located in C in the following city, following the following: (a) by deceiving the victim as soon as the repair cost is paid even though there is no intention or ability to pay the repair cost; (b) by deceiving the victim; and (c) by accepting the repair of the XG car operated by F from the damaged party, the Defendant acquired the pecuniary profit equivalent to KRW 7,50,000,000,000,000 from the repair cost.
B. On September 201, the Defendant, No. 5 of the annexed Table No. 13:00, on the same place as above, around September 13:00 in the middle of the annexed Table No. 201, by deceiving the victim as if he did not have the intent or ability to pay the repair cost, and then, by deceiving the victim immediately, he/she acquired the pecuniary benefits equivalent to KRW 600,000,000 in the repair cost of the Ecuas car owned by the Defendant.
(c)
Attached Form
At around 13:00 on March 5, 2012, the Defendant, No. 7, the crime sight table No. 7, did not have the intent or ability to pay repair cost.