(영문) 창원지방법원 2007.4.19.선고 2006노1061 판결

1. The court below's partial statement, 00O's statement, suspect interrogation protocol of the defendant (including the part concerning ○○○'s statement), and police statement of 00 million won as evidence, and "the defendant does not specifically implement the business of developing recreational areas, such as family hotels, on the northwest-gun of Gangseo-gun, and there is no investment from other investors, and even if the defendant did not make an investment in the above business, he was aware of it through the marriage information company without the intention or ability to pay the principal and earnings, and acquired the above investment money from the victim under the premise of marriage. The court below's decision was 80 million won for 70 billion won for 200 million won for 70 billion won for 200 million won for 700 won for 200 million won for 300 million won for 200 million won for 300 million won for 200 million won for 200 million won for 200 million won for 200 million won for 200 million won for 200 million won for 200 million won for investment.

2. The facts charged against the defendant are as stated in paragraph (1) which the court below acknowledged. The suspect interrogation protocol of the defendant, which the defendant is deemed to have been prepared by the prosecutor in appearance in this court, is prepared at the end of the examination by the original prosecutor's office of the prosecutor's office of the original prosecutor's office of the defendant who was the defendant and the victim's ○○ in charge without the presence of the prosecutor's office of the defendant and the victim's ○○ in charge. The prosecutor stated that the defendant made several words only for the part of the speech of the defendant in the prosecutor's office of the defendant at the time, the prosecutor did not prove that the preparation of the suspect interrogation protocol is the prosecutor's ○ in charge, and even if the prosecutor's signature and seal were affixed on the prosecutor's protocol, it cannot be deemed as falling under "the protocol in which the prosecutor's statement of the suspect was written by the prosecutor" under Article 312 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and even if the defendant's ○○ Kim-○ prepared the prosecutor's office's protocol without consent of the prosecutor's office's evidence.

On the other hand, the burden of proof of criminal facts prosecuted in a criminal trial shall be the prosecutor, and the conviction shall be based on the evidence with probative value that leads a judge to feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. If there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt about the defendant's guilt, it is inevitable to determine the defendant's interest. In light of the statement made by Park ○-○ Police in this court, the evidence such as the statement made by the defendant and Park ○-○ Police alone, which the defendant submitted by the prosecutor, alone, cannot be deemed to have been the criminal intent of the defendant or the statement made by the defendant to Park ○-○ as stated in the judgment of the court below, and thus, it shall be pronounced not guilty pursuant to Article 325 of the