A. The scope of “where other important evidence is discovered” under Article 262(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which is a requirement for re-proving after the decision to dismiss an application for adjudication against Defendant A (legal scenario) becomes final and conclusive, needs to be mitigated in light of the relationship with the restriction on re-detention (Article 208(1)), the restriction on re-detention (Article 329), and the restriction on re-prosecution (Article 329) after the revocation of a public prosecution (Article 329). In such a interpretation, the written decision to deny exemption in the bankruptcy exemption case against Defendant A, which includes the ruling that “no obvious material to deem that Defendant A borrowed money from Defendant B”, constitutes “other important evidence” under the above provision.

Nevertheless, the court below dismissed the public prosecution against the defendant A by determining that it does not constitute a case where other important evidence is discovered even if the above written decision of refusing to grant immunity was submitted on a different premise. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of

B. The judgment of the court below which acquitted Defendant B on the ground that the transfer of the right to return the lease deposit of this case between Defendant B and Defendant B was false, and Defendant B was aware that there was a possibility that Defendant B would be subject to compulsory execution from the creditor at the time, but such circumstance could not be proved without reasonable doubt, is erroneous in the misapprehension of the fact that it did not affect the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The summary of the facts charged is Defendant A’s speech and advice of Defendant B, and the Defendants are self-consigning.

Defendant

A, on January 23, 2006, because it was impossible for the victim D to borrow KRW 112 million from the victim D and repay it, as the payee D, issuer E (the husband of the defendant A), the par value of KRW 100 million, the due date for payment, and a promissory note issued on January 23, 2007, shall be immediately made when delay is made.