A. According to the prosecutor’s statement and other evidence, the court below found that the defendant committed each of the following acts on May 1, 2009 and December 28, 2009 against the injured party. However, the court below acquitted the injured party not guilty of this part of the charges on the ground that the court below erred by misapprehending the facts.

나. 피고인의 주장 (1) 법리 오해 ㈎ 피고인과 E 사이에 이루어진 대화를 기록한 각 녹취록( 증거 목록 순번 3, 19) 은 그 원본에 대한 증거조사가 이루어진 바 없어 증거능력이 없고, 피고인이 작성한 각 확인서( 증거 목록 순번 5, 6) 는 특히 신빙할 수 있는 상태에서 작성된 것이 아니므로 마찬가지로 증거능력이 없다.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on admissibility of evidence, and used the above evidence as evidence of guilt against the defendant.

㈏ 피해자 E에 대한 원심 판시 범죄 일람표 (1) 기 재 각 범행 전체를 포괄 일죄로 볼 수 없고, ① 순 번 1 내지 4 기 재 범행과 ② 순 번 5, 6 기 재 범행, ③ 순 번 7 기 재 범행이 각 실체적 경합관계에 있으므로, ①, ② 범행은 공소 시효가 이미 완성되었다.

Therefore, a judgment of acquittal should be sentenced to this part of the charges.

(2) In fact, the Defendant’s misunderstanding of facts received money from the victim E and J not from the street funds for the appointment of professors, but from the cost of guiding the victims to be appointed as professors. Of the money stated in the facts charged, the money received from the victim E is only KRW 80 million deposited into the Defendant’s account.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of misunderstanding the facts, thereby obtaining a total of KRW 620 million from the victim E, and KRW 1882,100,00 from the victim J.

(3) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. This part of the facts charged regarding the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts is examined.