beta
Text
The defendant shall be innocent.
Reasons
1. The Defendant and C, and D in the facts charged are as follows: (a) the Defendant and C, and D are aware of the facts charged through “Internet Roba,” or are as follows: (b) the Defendant and C, and C,
At around 14:00 on May 30, 2008, the Defendant conspired to receive insurance proceeds by intentionally causing C and intentionally causing an accident. On the roads near the Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Dongdaemun-gu rainwater pumps, the Defendant acquired pecuniary benefits equivalent to the amount of KRW 2,828,060 (i.e., agreed amount of KRW 300,000 repair cost of KRW 28,50,060 (2,50,000 repair cost of KRW 28,50,000) by causing the victim LIG Damage Insurance Co., Ltd. (insured C and Insured Handling Person A) to intentionally conflict with the FObane of C driving, due to intentional collision with the FObane of C.
B. On June 26, 2009, the Defendant conspiredd to receive insurance proceeds by causing D and intentional accidents, and acquired pecuniary benefits equivalent to the amount of KRW 2,627,500 for the victim LIG Damage Insurance Co., Ltd. (insured A, Insured Persons, Insured Persons D) by intentionally conflicting with D's Jalba in the roads near H hotel located in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City (Seoul), by intentionally doing so with D's Jalba, thereby having the victim LIG Damage Insurance Co., Ltd. (insured, Insured Persons A, Insured Persons D) pay insurance proceeds equivalent to KRW 27,500 for 700,000 for the agreed amount of KRW 27,500 for the repair cost of KRW 1,90,000 for the repair cost of KRW
2. In light of the conclusion of the judgment, the burden of proof for the facts charged in a criminal trial is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction is to be based on the evidence with probative value sufficient to cause a judge to have a reasonable doubt that the facts charged are true. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, the doubt of guilt against the defendant even if there is no such evidence.
Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.
In this case, examining the evidence that the defendant seems to correspond to the facts charged that the defendant intentionally acquired the insurance money in collusion with C, it is insufficient to recognize the facts charged as follows, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the facts charged.
(i) Statement of the police interrogation of the accused.