A. Facts No. 2 of the judgment of the court below concerning mistake of facts

(c)bee;

(1) The Defendant is the J Association (hereinafter “instant J Association”).

In the process of the establishment of a dental clinic, the actual contributions from the actual members were paid, and the authorization for establishment was duly obtained, and the establishment was completed accordingly. Accordingly, the Defendant completed the registration of establishment of the instant judicial association by false or other unlawful means as stated in the facts charged, and the establishment and operation of a dental clinic in its name cannot be deemed as deceiving the National Health Insurance Corporation and deceiving the medical care benefit cost therefrom. Nevertheless, the lower court erred in misunderstanding of facts. (b) The lower court’s judgment otherwise determined is erroneous in matters of law. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing

2. Determination

A. In a criminal trial for determining the assertion of mistake of facts, the degree of the formation of a conviction for the finding of guilty should be such that there is no reasonable doubt, but to the extent that it excludes all possible doubts, and rejection of evidence which is recognized as having probative value is beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, and cannot be allowed as it goes beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence.

The reasonable doubt here refers to a reasonable doubt as to the probability of facts that cannot be matched with the facts in accordance with logical and empirical rules, rather than all questions and correspondences. Since the circumstances favorable to the defendant need to be based on the theory of sexual prosecution that grasped the facts in relation to the fact finding, the doubt based on conceptual or abstract possibility cannot be deemed to be included in a reasonable doubt.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do2221, Jun. 25, 2004). The evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court is examined.