beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor as to the gist of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles), the court below rendered a judgment of innocence against the defendant. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. On January 6, 2015, the Defendant: (a) received Handphone letters from the victim C who sold HC from the Defendant, at the place of insular place on January 6, 2015; and (b) transferred KRW 74,750 to the Defendant immediately, the Defendant, on January 12, 2015, ordered the Defendant to send the said HC to the victim’s door-to-door.
However, even if the defendant received the above money from the injured party, he did not have the intention or ability to send the hedge money.
The defendant deceivings the victim by the above method and received 74,750 won from the damaged person to the account in the name of the defendant.
B. The lower court rendered a judgment on the following grounds that the facts charged in the instant case constituted a case where there is no proof of crime, and rendered a judgment of innocence pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
The burden of proving the facts constituting an offense charged in a criminal trial is to be borne by a public prosecutor, and the conviction shall be based on evidence with probative value that leads a judge to have the truth that the facts charged are true beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt of guilt against the defendant, it is inevitable to determine the defendant as the benefit of the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Do2823, Aug. 21, 2001; 2008Do4467, Jul. 24, 2008). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant is the victim until January 12, 2015, for which the duty to return agreed with the victim was due.