beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
The summary of the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor (misunderstanding the facts) is consistent with the purport that the victims were guilty of the charges of this case by deceiving the victims without being notified of the priority deposit amount from the Defendant who is the lessor and by deceiving them to enter into each of the lease contracts of this case, in full view of the following: (a) the facts charged of this case are found guilty, even though the court below acquitted the Defendant of the charges of this case, on the contrary of the facts charged of this case, on the following grounds: (b) the 203 and 205 lease contract (hereinafter “the instant lease contract”) which is a multi-family house located in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “the instant building”); (c) the entry of the lease contract, etc. is consistent with the statement of the victims; and (d) the F, the intermediary assistant, without being notified of the priority deposit amount from the Defendant who is the lessor.
Judgment
In full view of the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court determined that the evidence alone submitted by the prosecutor was the criminal intent of deceiving the victims to conclude each of the instant lease contracts by deceiving the victims, or of taking the Defendant into account the deposit money from the victims.
It is difficult to see
On the other hand, the defendant was acquitted.
In addition, in light of the fact that the criminal appellate court has the nature of a post-examination while the criminal trial court has the nature of a post-examination and the spirit of substantial direct deliberation as provided in the Criminal Procedure Act, there is insufficient evidence to exclude a reasonable doubt after undergoing the examination of evidence such as examination of witness by the first instance court.
In a case where a not guilty verdict of facts charged is rendered, it can sufficiently resolve the reasonable doubts raised by the first instance trial even if the probability or question of some opposed facts may be raised as a result of the trial of the appellate court.