A. In fact-finding (the Defendants) did not have any fact that the Defendants did not belong to the Victim G (hereinafter “victim”), and endeavored to pass the Victim F’s H University.

After receiving KRW 3 million from the victim, the Defendants actually requested L professors belonging to H University to take a rest. However, the said L professors merely merely did not appear separately by giving the victim’s words that F would pass by the victim’s children.

In other words, the defendants had the intention to admit F to H University, made efforts to pass the University by the actual F, and F passed the above University, and therefore, the judgment of the court below that found the defendants guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts.

B. The sentence (3 million won of fine) imposed by the court below on Defendant B is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the defendants' assertion of mistake of facts

A. The relevant legal doctrine 1) In a case where a criminal defendant denies the criminal intent, which is a subjective element of elements constituting a crime, the criminal intent itself cannot be objectively proved, and therefore, it is inevitable to prove the fact by means of proving indirect or circumstantial facts related to the criminal intent given the nature of an object. In such a case, what constitutes an indirect or circumstantial fact ought to be determined by a method of reasonably determining the link of facts based on a close observation or analysis based on normal empirical rule (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do15470, Jan. 12, 2017). 2) In view of the difference between the method of evaluating the credibility of the first instance trial and the appellate trial in light of the substance of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined in the first instance trial, the first instance court’s judgment on the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the first instance trial is clearly made in light of the substance of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined in the first instance trial.