Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles or affecting the conclusion of judgment.

2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court fully recognizes the Defendant’s receipt of money from E and F as stated in the facts charged.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is just, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the defendant, and thus, the above assertion by the

① In a case where a witness’s statement, including a victim, is mutually consistent and consistent with the facts charged, it shall not be rejected without permission, unless there exist any separate and reliable evidence that is objectively deemed to lack credibility (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do2631, Jun. 28, 2012). E and F consistently made statements that correspond to the facts charged from an investigative agency to the court of original trial.

In particular, the statement about the motive, circumstance, situation before and after giving money to the defendant is specific and natural to the extent that it is difficult to make a statement without actual experience, and there are no other circumstances to suspect the credibility of the above statement.

② The Defendant alleged that he was aware of others as Defendant because he provided money to many people during the election campaign period. However, F is all of the persons whose memory is unclear as to whether the Defendant was aware of others since he was the D representative interestO of the Saemaul Bank of Korea, a cooperative Saemaul, and was under investigation.