The case reversing the judgment of the court below which acquitted without rejecting the evidence conforming to the facts charged, or there is an error of incomplete deliberation or violation of the rules of evidence.

The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that the judgment of the court below which acquitted was erroneous in the incomplete hearing or in violation of the rules of evidence.

Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 85No6869 delivered on October 16, 1986

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Criminal Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The summary of the facts charged of this case is as follows: (a) in the case of the claim for ownership transfer registration between the plaintiff Gohyeong and the non-indicted 1 in the court of Dong Branch of the Seoul District Court No. 2 on May 30, 1984; (b) in the case of the claim between the defendant and the non-indicted 1 for ownership transfer registration, the defendant taken an oath as a witness; and (c) the above plaintiff and the defendant entered into a sales contract with the defendant for real estate located in 700,700,000 won in Gangnam-gu, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, and the non-indicted 1, who is the husband of the part payment, issued a bill for personal issuance with a face value of 4,310,000 won for the reason that the defendant's credit rating was low; (d) in the case of the non-indicted 1,465,000 won for the issuance of a promissory note, the bank paid the outstanding bill to the non-indicted 3,503,000,000 won for the above bill.

A. There is no fact that the Plaintiff’s 4.310 foot bill paid as an intermediate payment is returned according to the low credit rating, and another bill has been received as a substitute for it.

B. From the second chapter of a bill with a face value of five million won paid by the Plaintiff as the remainder payment, a bill with a face value of five million won at the face value of March 5, 1983 is deemed to have been presented with false meritorious deeds contrary to memory, which goes against the payment due to default and do not receive five million won or more.

As to this, the court below rejected all the evidence of the prosecutor's submission consistent with the above facts as stated in its ruling regarding intermediate payment by the defendant, and instead, it is the wife of the non-indicted 1 (the plaintiff in the private death case) and the mother of the defendant, who entered into a real estate sales contract at issue in this case, on November 3, 1982, the above Gokkra Co., Ltd. and the non-indicted 2 and the defendant's non-indicted 3 Co. 3 Co., Ltd. with the above fact that the above statements were false statements, and it is not possible for the defendant to receive the above 400,000 won of intermediate payment from 150,000 won of the above non-indicted Co., Ltd. to receive the above 130,000 won of the above non-indicted Co. 140, Jan. 10, 1983, the court below acknowledged that the defendant was not guilty of the above 401,000 won of the above intermediate payment.

However, in light of the record, when the complainant and the defendant made statements on the payment of the intermediate payment of this case, the above Han Byung-chul, the real estate purchaser of this case, gave a note 4.10,00 won per face value to the defendant who caused the intermediate payment of this case. However, the defendant, long after the fact that the above bill cannot be received as an individual bill with low credit rating, and the above bill is changed to another credit-based bill, and the bank as the representative of the Korea Export Packaging Corporation, which is over 4,650,000 won with high face value, changed to one promissory note. The defendant also received a note 4.110,00 won per face value from the above Han-chul, but it was hard to find out how the defendant received the intermediate payment of this case, but it was difficult to accept the above part payment of this case as a separate part of the intermediate payment of this case, and because the defendant did not change to the purport of the above part payment of this case, and it did not change to the purport of the above part payment of this case.

In addition, according to the records, except for the evidence rejected by the court below, the prosecutor submits a certified copy of the bill signed by a private person (this is also consistent with the above facts. If the defendant returned 4.1 billion won of the bill to 4.15 billion won of the face value as above and thereafter he received 4.1 billion won of the bill, and the non-indicted 1, a seller, prepared an intermediate payment to the above high value as the purchaser, and received 4.4 billion won of the bill to 4.15 billion won of the bill to 14.4 billion won of the bill to be returned to the above high value. According to the records, it is doubtful that the non-indicted 1 received 4.15 billion won of the bill from each of the above 14.15 billion won of the bill to 14.15 billion won of the bill to be returned to the above high value of the bill (this is also stated to the effect that it is also stated to the effect that each of the above 14.15 billion won of the bill will be returned to 14.165 billion won of the bill.14.16000 million of the bill.

Nevertheless, the court below accepted the defendant's defense suit that the above 4.650,000 won of a promissory note was not received as the intermediate payment of this case without failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations as to the above circumstances supporting the facts charged of this case and without rejecting the above evidence consistent with the facts charged, and sentenced the defendant not guilty. Thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence or in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence, and there is a ground for

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Man-hee (Presiding Justice)