The lower court did not recognize the Defendant’s criminal intent or illegality of an act on the premise that the Defendant’s notification of the request for the suspension of advertisement was around May 23, 2016.

However, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant was notified of the suspension of advertisement before May 16, 2016, and even if around May 23, 2016, the Defendant was aware of the illegality of the advertisement of this case.

Even if there is sufficient time to delete the advertisement from 2 to 3 minutes, the defendant's intention and illegality in the facts charged of this case is recognized.

Judgment

A. The recognition of facts constituting an offense in a criminal trial ought to be based on strict evidence with probative value, which makes a judge not to have any reasonable doubt. As such, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof is not sufficiently enough to achieve such conviction, even if there is suspicion of guilt, such as the defendant’s assertion or defense contradictory or uncomfortable dismissal, it should be determined in the interests of the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do1487, Apr. 28, 201). In addition, in light of the fact that the appellate court has the character as a follow-up trial even after it belongs to the court, and in light of the spirit of substantial direct deliberation as prescribed in the Criminal Procedure Act, it is insufficient for the first instance court to exclude a reasonable doubt after undergoing the examination of evidence, such as the examination of witness.

In a case where the facts charged are acquitted, the probability or question of some dissenting facts may be raised as a result of the appellate court’s trial.