Housing Yeonsu-gu Incheon Rool-dong

Permanent Address Yeonsu-gu Incheon Dong-dong, Incheon

The defendant shall be innocent.

The Defendant did not receive money from the head of the Gu. On May 2004, 2004, the first police officer reported the alteration of the purpose of the use of the building. It is difficult to understand that the Defendant had no reason to give a bribe to the Defendant. It is hard to understand that Park○ made a bribe by withdrawing KRW 52 million in cash for about 2 months, and giving part of it as a bribe. If the Defendant continued to receive a bribe from Park○○○, there is no reason to return the report on the alteration of the purpose of use of the Ga○○○○, and that it was hard to find the Defendant guilty of the above facts charged on the ground that ○○○○○ was 30 million won or more and forged the public document, or that ○○○○○ was intending to receive KRW 30 million,000,000,000,000 from the prosecutor’s office, and that it was difficult to accept the Defendant’s report on the alteration of the purpose of use of the public document.

2. Determination

A. Summary of the facts charged

The summary of the facts charged in this case is that the Defendant was a person who was in office as the head of Yeonsu-gu Incheon Metropolitan City and was in general charge of the overall affairs of the Gu office from July 2, 2002. On May 2, 2004, at the meeting room of the head of the head of Yeonsu-gu Office located in Yeonsu-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Yeonsu-gu, Yeonsu-gu, Incheon, the head of Yeonsu-gu, Yeonsu-gu, Incheon, the head of Yeonsu-gu, the head of Yeonsu-gu, Yeonsu-gu, Incheon, the head of Yeonsu-gu, the head of the office, who was trying to establish a funeral hall, received cash KRW 30 million, and received a bribe in relation to his duties.

(b) basic facts;

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, the following facts can be acknowledged.

(1) On March 2, 2004, the instant report on the change of the purpose of use (A) entered into a lease agreement on the instant building (a deposit KRW 40 million, monthly rent KRW 27.5 million) with a view to operating a funeral hall in the Yeonsu-gu Incheon Building (hereinafter “instant building”) 592-5, Yeonsu-gu, Yeonsu-gu, Incheon, with a view to operating the funeral hall, and on March 2, 2004, reported the change of the purpose of use of the instant building 2 and 3, the purpose of which is designated as a neighborhood living facility and business facility.

(B) The instant building is located in the last block of the central commercial area in Yeonsu-gu, and the width of the road has been removed from the vertical station history, and there is an officetel building owned by the Kim00, where the office of the local newspaperman ( issuer: Kim00) is located within the central direction of the area above the instant building.

(C) Funeral parlors is an urban planning facility under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”). However, it is a voluntary facility that does not necessarily be determined by an urban management plan. It is classified as a medical facility under the Building Act; it is possible to change the purpose of use if it conforms to the provisions on the change of use under the Building Act. Thus, for funeral home business, it is possible to change the purpose of use.

Only acceptance of reports of change of use to medical facilities is required.

(D) At the time of the Gu office’s acceptance of a report on the change of the purpose of use of a general building at the time, the head of the building department reported to the head of the Gu on March 6, 2004, when there is room for a civil petition by recognizing the general public as an hate facility such as a funeral hall. (e) On March 6, 2004

Although there is no defect, the funeral hall recognizes the majority of the residents as a hate facility, which is expected to be a majority of the civil petitions in the alteration of the purpose of use, and the employees of the Gu including Lee○, who worked as policy expert members of the Yeonsu-gu Office at the time, avoided opposing opinions on the grounds of civil petitions, etc., and send a letter demanding Park○ to supplement 10 items in the construction of the Yeonsu-gu Office on the same day.

(2) When the Defendant and ○○○○○○○○○○ ○○○○○ 2’s first report on the change of the purpose of use of the instant ○○○○○ 2’s funeral hall was not accepted, the instant report on the change of the purpose of use of the instant ○○ 2’s funeral hall was considered to require connection within the Yeonsu-gu Office. On March 2004, ○○ 2’s first report on the change of the purpose of use of the instant ○○ 2’s funeral hall, which was known to the head of the Gu through the ○○○○○ ○○○○ 2’s University University 2’s old 2’s old 200-old 2’s old 2’s old 20-old 2’s old 20-old 2’s old 20-old 2’s old 20-old 2’s old 200-old 2’s new 200-old 3’s new 3.

(E) On April 4, 2004, the Defendant visited the training funeral home, along with this ○○, to visit the training funeral home, and "to see it clean," and after opening the funeral home, the Defendant was suffering from the restaurant, i.e., ‘E., E., E., E., E., in the vicinity of E.S. Fishery.' (3) On May 4, 2004, the situation after the inquiry of Incheon Metropolitan City on May 4, 2004.

(A) On May 1, 2004, in Yeonsu-gu, an inquiry was made as to whether it is possible to use the instant funeral hall in the central commercial area in relation to the alteration of the purpose of use in the urban planning department of Incheon Metropolitan City. On May 4, 2004, in Incheon Metropolitan City, a funeral hall is a voluntary facility that does not necessarily be determined by urban planning facilities under the National Land Planning Act or urban management plans, and it is classified as a medical facility according to the classification of use under the Building Act, and it is possible to construct it pursuant to Article 71 (1) 7 and subparagraph 2 of attached Table 8 of the Enforcement Decree of the National Land Planning Act and subparagraph 3 of Article 37 of the Urban Planning Ordinance, and if it conforms to the provisions for alteration of use under the Building Act, it is possible to use it.

5.4. Through Yellow ○○, a copy of the above questionnaire sent by the staff of Incheon Metropolitan City by facsimile.

(B) On May 6, 2004 to July 7, 2004, the Defendant is allowed to change the purpose of use in Incheon Metropolitan City at the place where the head of the construction division and the head of the construction team receive a report on the inquiry from the right ○○○ and the head of the building team to the Incheon Metropolitan City

In addition, it is necessary to positively examine the acceptance of the report of change of use. Since the funeral hall in Yeonsu-gu is only one place of Red Cross Hospital, it is necessary to make a funeral hall in Yeonsu-gu.

(4) On May 11, 2004, the situation after the publication of the alternative engineer

(A) On May 11, 2004, a local newspaperman published a article opposing the acceptance of the instant report of change of the purpose of use under the title of “the title of the funeral hall in front of the training station,” and sought to create a negative public opinion on the change of the purpose of use of the instant case while continuously posting an article that points out that the location of the instant funeral hall is inappropriate. (b) On May 14, 2004, the Defendant was likely to cause a group civil petition because the head of the office affiliated with the city office of Yeonsu-gu, Yeonsu-gu, Seoul, at a meeting where the head of the division belonging to the city office of Yeonsu-gu, recognized the funeral hall as a suspected facility, “the residents surrounding the funeral hall recognize the funeral hall as a suspected facility.” On the 18th of the same month, the head of the construction division attended the extraordinary meeting of the Yeonsu-gu Council and understood the purport that “the construction of the funeral hall in the central commercial area is inappropriate, so the construction of the funeral hall is inappropriate, and the residents opposed to the amendment of the Ordinance.

(C) On June 9 through November 2004, the president of the Building Division and the president of the Building Team reported that the Defendant would accept the instant report on the change of the purpose of use of the building. However, the Defendant: (a) stated that “The Defendant is too seriously opposed to the president of the Yeonsu Ma Kim00 who owns the building adjacent to the funeral hall; (b) rejected the previous council’s opposition; and (c) ordered that the Defendant follow the result of the administrative appeal; and (d) returned the defective order to comply with the administrative appeal; and (c) on the 12th of the same month in Yeonsu-gu, the office rejected the instant report on the change of use on the grounds that the area at issue is inappropriate to be the location of the funeral hall as the station area (the second rejection disposition).

(5) Situation after the second return disposition

(A) On June 19, 2004, ○○ filed an administrative appeal against the second return disposition, and 2004.

7. On 14. 14. Administrative Appeals Commissions were held, and a ruling of acceptance was rendered to revoke the above disposition on the 19. 19.

(B) On July 2004, Lee ○ requested money from ○○ by telephone to ○○○, which is the same as the report on change of the purpose of use in the inside of the country was accepted, and Park○ paid KRW 3 million in cash to ○○○ on the following day.

(C) As above, in an administrative appeal, a cited ruling was made, and in Yeonsu-gu Office, the rejection ruling was revoked on July 27, 2004, and accordingly, a report on change of use was again filed on July 30, 200, and around that time, the head of the construction division ○○ and the head of the construction team ○○ and the head of the construction team ○ would accept the report on change of use to the Defendant along with the head of the urban bureau. However, the Defendant: (a) received the recommendation of the director of the urban bureau and requested deliberation to the civil petition coordination committee.

The direction was given.

(D) On August 7, 2004, Gamb○ requested ○○○ to create a document under the name of the Yeonsu-gu Office to the effect that documents to be shown to its partners are necessary and that the report of change of use was accepted. This ○○○ forged a permit under the name of the Yeonsu-gu Office in collusion with Gab○○. (e) On August 7, 2004, the Yeonsu-gu Office Construction and the Yeonsu-gu Civil Petition Coordination Committee requested the review of whether to accept the report of change of purpose of use of this case to the Yeonsu-gu Civil Petition Coordination Committee, which was held on August 17, 200, and the above committee decided to present the above agenda to the Urban Planning Committee for deliberation. On September 23, 2004, the office of Yeonsu-gu rejected the report of change of purpose of this case on the grounds of 20th of the same month (3rd return disposition) and the final report of change of purpose of use was rejected (20th of September 14, 2004).

(6) Situation after the final return disposition

(A) On April 21, 2005, Park○-○ filed a revocation lawsuit against the final return disposition in the name of the owner of the building (Seoul District Court 2004Guhap3599), and the head of the training Gu appealed against the Plaintiff. However, on March 16, 2006, the Seoul High Court sentenced the dismissal of appeal (Seoul High Court 2005Nu1168). The head of the training Gu appealed on June 15, 2006, but the Supreme Court sentenced this case to the Supreme Court (Supreme Court 2006Du5823). (b) Park○-○ filed a complaint against the violation of the Building Act’s opening of the funeral hall on October 6, 2004; (c) the Defendant filed a complaint against the violation of the Building Act’s order on March 25, 2004; and (d) the Defendant filed an accusation against the violation of the Building Act’s order on March 14, 2004.

(C) From November 5, 2004 to operate the training hall with Kim △△△△△△ on the operation of the said funeral hall, around April 30, 2005, the Park ○○ concluded a contract with Kim △△△△△ on the transfer of equity interest in the said funeral hall, and the said funeral hall has discontinued its operation.

(7) Commencement of investigation and institution of the prosecution of this case

On August 16, 2005, the Incheon District Public Prosecutor's Office obtained intelligence related to the bribe case of the defendant, Lee ○, and Park ○, and the prosecution investigation was initiated. As a result, the prosecution of this case was instituted on December 6, 2005.

C. The judgment of the court below

The court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case on the ground that 00, 00, 00, and 00, which were offered to the offer of this case for the offering of this case and the following reasons, stated that 00, 00, 00, and 00, all of 00, were going to always attend the school at the prosecutor's office, and that there is no circumstance for 00,000 to make false statements even when 0,000, 00, and 00, which were offered to the offer of this case, are reliable, and each statement at the prosecutor's office and court of the court of the court below at the court below, and each of the statements (in the case of 00, only the statement at the prosecutor's office) at the prosecutor's office and court of the court below (in the case of 00, 30,000,000 won received the report of this case as soon as possible from 0, May 2004.

(1) On March 2004, ○○○ stated that: (a) from the prosecutor’s office to the court of the court below, she kept cash of KRW 50 million and KRW 20 million received from an investor in his/her name in his/her house on April 2004; and (b) delivered the Defendant with KRW 30 million among them; (c) at the time ○○○ was believed to accept the instant report on change of use without legal defects as a matter of course; (d) there was a circumstance that the instant report on change of use, which had not been legally defective at that time, was immediately cut ahead of the said time; and (e) there was no likelihood that the subsequent report on change of use was rejected to the effect that the head of ○○○○○○ was an original document for reasons of a bribe, or that there was no doubt that the Defendant had been granted a bribe at that time, and (e) there was no reasonable time after that time, in light of the circumstances that the Defendant had been given a bribe to the head of the Gu.

However, the Defendant did not think of the first change in the use of his funeral hall. The Defendant thought that 00 million won was positively considered while visiting 00 million won or a funeral hall, and that such thought continued to exist until the early May 1, 2004, but became aware of the concern about the occurrence of a civil petition only with the posting of a dissenting engineer on training base on the 11st of the same month. On the contrary, the Defendant changed his passive attitude on the change in the use of the instant case with the awareness of a next election in an unexpected opposing opinion. On the other hand, even if the change in the use of the instant case is legally not legally defective, the Defendant cannot be viewed as having given 00 thousand won or more to the effect that the change in the use of the instant funeral hall was not accepted through administrative litigation. In light of the Defendant’s series of dual attitude, the Defendant cannot be viewed as having given 00 million won or more to the effect that 000 won was not able to report the change in the use of 00,000 won or more.

The above statement of Park○-○ stated that, inasmuch as Park○-○ continued a funeral hall in Yeonsu-gu, this case’s bribe was believed to be difficult for the Gu office to punish the Gu office by neglecting the fact of offering a bribe, and that it was eventually impossible for Park○-○ to directly operate the instant bribe only after the Park○-○ transferred the training funeral hall to Kim△-△△△, and then he was unable to directly operate the instant bribe.

It is sufficiently acceptable in light of the following facts: (a) Park○-○ made a confession on a grant; (b) since Park○-○ made a promise to accept a report of change of the purpose of use by the Defendant, he believed his promise; and (c) he made a statement on the instant case to Lee○-○ on September 2004, which directly heard from the Defendant, that he could not directly pressure the Defendant; and (c) ○○-○ was given a statement in the court of the court of the court of the court below that she could not direct the Defendant; and (d) this ○-○ also made a statement in the court of the court of the court of the court below that she made an indirect method such as inducing ○-○ to conceal the fact that she received a bribe of KRW 5 million from the Defendant; and (e) ○○-○ also made a statement after September 204, 204 that she made a statement to her head of Don-○ in view of the fact that she made a statement to her.

D. The judgment of this Court

However, such determination by the court below is difficult to accept for the following reasons. (1) In a criminal trial, the conviction must be based on evidence with probative value sufficient for a judge to have a reasonable doubt that the facts charged are true. If there is no evidence to establish such a conviction, even if there is no doubt as to the defendant's guilt, it should be determined as the defendant's interest (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do5662, Dec. 24, 2002). In addition, in the case of bribery, where the defendant, who was designated as the consignee, denies the fact of bribery, and there is no evidence such as financial materials to support this, there is no possibility that the defendant's statement should be admissible as well as evidence to exclude a reasonable doubt. In addition, in order to determine credibility, there is no possibility that the contents of the statement should be rational, objective reasonableness, consistency, etc., as well as that of human beings before and after it, or that there is no possibility that the defendant's interest in the criminal investigation may be denied or not.

(2) In this case where the Defendant completely denied the facts charged in this case from the prosecution to the trial of the court of the trial, while there is no physical evidence, such as financial materials to support the facts, the principal evidence that corresponds to the facts charged in this case is presented to the Defendant, as in the facts charged in this case, by the Park Il-○'s prosecutor's office, and by the court of the court below and the court of the court below and the court of the court below, that he paid the Defendant money from each of the statements at the prosecutor's office and the court of the court below and the court of the court below to the effect that he received a proposal, and that he paid money from Park Il-○'s prosecutor's office and the court of the court below and the court of the court of the court below, and that he paid money from Park Il-○'s office and the court of the court of the court below and the court of the court of the court below (Y○○ in the prosecutor's office and the court of the court of the court below and the court of the court below's prosecutor's office and the court of this case).

(1) With respect to the statement of ○○○○○○○○○○, ○○○○ Office made a statement to the effect that “The said ○○○○○○○ Office shall withdraw KRW 50 million in cash from the Agricultural Cooperative Account under the name of △△△△△△△△ on March 2004. On April 2004, 200 KRW 30,000 out of the investment money deposited by the △△△△△△△△△△△△△, an investor in the Yeonsu-dong funeral hall, in a group of occasions. The said KRW 30,000,000 among them were kept in the house or accompanying room and delivered to the Defendant on May 204. According to the fact that ○○○○○○○○○○ Office’s statement was difficult to disclose the funeral hall, the said KRW 200,000,000,000,000 from the above △△△△△△△△△△△△’s statement made it.”

However, the following circumstances are acknowledged as follows: (a) some of the statements in the original trial by Park○-○'s court and the trial court at the trial court at the Kim Jong-il court at the original trial, and the statements in the investigation report at the court of the original trial (a copy of the statement of transactions of Park○-○ gold account), written confirmation (in the trial record 374 pages), deposit transaction statement (in the case of reference materials submitted by the counsel on December 20, 206) and written estimates (Evidence No. 5 submitted by the counsel). < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 18204, Apr. 4, 2004>

4. The fact that 00,00 won was returned to 200,000 won, and 20,000 won was returned to 200,000 won, and that 20,000 won was returned to 20,000 won, such as 0,000 won was returned to 4,000 won, and that 4,00 won was returned to 20,000 won, and that 2,000 won was returned to 4,00,000 won was returned to 4,00 won, and there was no possibility that 0,000 won was returned to 4,00 won, 0,000 won was returned to 2,000 won, 3,000 won was returned to 4,00 won, in light of the fact that 2,000 won was returned to 4,00 won, and that 2,000 won was returned to 4,000 won.

B) As to the method of offering of a bribe, Park Poe-○ has, since the prosecution, put 30 million won in a door where she was called "one million won to be bound by one million won per newspaper," and then opened the door to the head of the Gu office and talking with the defendant, leaving 30 million won per newspaper from the above door to be opened to the customer, and pushing ahead with the defendant", without preparing to deliver the money to the container with a large amount of money as above, "I want to put it out from the court below to be closed," and "I wish to put it out from the court below to be closed," and "I wish to put it out to have only 30 million won, which is the first day of the interrogation, and I wish to put it out to be closed," and "I wish to put it out to the public prosecutor's office's statement that "I wish to put it out to be closed," and "I wish to put it out to the public prosecutor's statement that "I wish to have it out to be closed to the court."

C) As to the bags (No. 2) seized by containing money with the Defendant’s money, gambling, from the prosecutor’s office to the court of the court of the first instance, stated that this page was in the face of his/her reputation. However, both ○○○, Yellow Water, and Lee ○○, which were seized in the court of the first instance, stated that the above seized bags are clearly different in terms of the size, shape, and quality of the bags where Park○’s ordinary mercence.

D) As to the volume of money that the Defendant sent to the Defendant, Park○ stated that 30,000 won was bound by the court of the first instance to 1 million won only at the court of the first instance, and that 10,000 won was attached to each photograph attached to the investigation report (on the face of 30,000 won or less in cash, the attachment report of a re-floited photograph of the newspaper) and each photograph submitted by the defense counsel as reference material on January 19, 207, it can be acknowledged that the above 30,000 won was much larger than 1,000 won in the part of the Park Jong-gu box.

3) As to the Defendant’s attitude as a consignee, Park○○ stated in the lower court and the trial court that “it stated that the Defendant would receive money within three to four days from the date of obtaining a copy of the Incheon Viewing Inquiry. As seen earlier, Park○○ obtained a copy of the above inquiry inquiry on May 4, 2004, according to the above statement of Park○○○○, the date on which the Defendant received money from Park○○○○ would be the same from May 7 to 8, 2004. As seen earlier, it is difficult to view that the Defendant received money from the construction division around the 14th day of the same month, which did not reach the above order to decide whether to accept the instant report of change of the purpose of use, and that it would be difficult to accept the above report of this case from the construction division around the 10th day of the same month to the construction division around the 10th day of the same, and return the report to the construction division on June 9, 2004 to the above order to suspend its use.

As to this, the court below reasoned that the defendant's change of use in this case is ultimately resolved through administrative litigation, and it seems that Park ○-○'s complaint was closed and the defendant recommended administrative appeal and administrative litigation to the effect that he did not accept a report of change of use differently from his own opinion because of public opinion against Park ○-○ through administrative litigation. In light of the defendant's double attitude, it cannot be viewed that the defendant's statement of Park ○-○'s statement was not credibility solely on the ground that the above report was rejected. However, Park ○-○'s report of change of use that he would hear through "the defendant's money from the prosecutor's office to the court of the trial," is closed.

D. At this point, the monthly 30 million won per day is the 30,000 won per month. The request was made to the effect that the change of the purpose of the use was legally possible. Accordingly, it was obvious that the report of this case changed the purpose of this case is to be accepted even after the administrative litigation. As such, it was obvious to Park ○○, so it was given a bribe to the defendant for the front time of the acceptance of the report, rather than whether the above report was accepted or not. Thus, it is difficult to accept the above decision of the court below. Thus, it is difficult to accept the above decision of the court below.

On the other hand, the defendant ordered the head of the building division and the head of the building team to positively examine the report of this case's change of purpose of use from May 6 to July 7, 2004. However, according to the above circumstances, i.e., the date on which the defendant received money from Gab○○ in accordance with the statement of Gab○○, which would be from May 7 to 8, 2004. Since the defendant had already been able to accept the report of this case's change of purpose of use from the time of introduction of Gab○ in March 2004, it is difficult to view that the defendant was given a bribe from Gab○○, so it is difficult to view that the head of the building division and the head of the building team were given the above instructions (the head of the building division, around May 10, 200, reported to the defendant about the Incheon Gab○'s inquiry at the court of first instance, and received the above instructions).

4) According to the prosecutor's office and each recording at the court of the original trial and the court of the original trial and the court of the first instance (the investigation record 304 to 404 pages) as to the attitude of Park ○○'s as a person of a lightning, it does not state any objection to the purport that "I will not accept a report of change of use even after receiving a bribe from the prosecutor's office on September 6, 2005 until he was investigated as the case," and "I will not give the defendant a notice on the acceptance of the report of change of use". He did not speak that I would like to give money to the defendant while recording a conversation with the defendant around September 2004, and it is difficult to recognize that I will accept the above report of change of use for the purpose of "I will not accept the report of change of use" for the purpose of "I will not accept the report of this case's election fund," and it is hard to recognize that I will receive the above report of change of use from the defendant."

As to this, from the prosecution to the trial of the court of first instance, Park○-○ refers to the statements made by Park○-○'s prosecutor's office and by the prosecutor's office of the court below and the prosecutor's office of the court below and the court of first instance, each of the above statements and statements made by Park○-○'s office and the chief of the police officer's office of the defendant during September 2004, Park○-○-○'s office of the defendant's non-public official's non-public official's non-public official's non-public official's non-public official's non-public official's statement to the effect that the relation with the defendant who is the head of the Gu becomes worse, and it is difficult for the defendant to think of all of the public official's public official's public official's office and the defendant's non-public official's non-public official's non-public official's business.

9. Around 100, Park○-○, who made a statement that he had aggravated the relationship between the Defendant and the Defendant by using verbal abuse directly and indirectly against the Defendant, made it difficult for the Defendant to believe that he did not mention the relation to the offering of a bribe, and that he made it difficult for the Defendant to believe that he did not mention the relation to the offering of a bribe. Moreover, with respect to the motive of his statement, Park○-○, which should be accepted as a matter of course under the law, continued to return the change of the purpose of use to a funeral hall management manager, and caused bankruptcy, and there was sufficient motive to gather the Defendant due to the desire of a series of reports of change of the purpose of use to the Defendant leading the disposition, and the original intent of the Defendant was expressed as it was in the process of testimony in the trial court.

6) Sub-decisions

In full view of the above circumstances, it is difficult to see that each of the statements made at the prosecution office and the court of the original instance and the court of the original instance are credibility.

(B) On May 204, 2004, 1) Yellow ○○ made a statement at the prosecutor’s office that “I have to conduct personnel affairs from the head of the Gu at this point,” “I have to do so,” and “I have to prepare money from the head of the Gu,” and “I have to conduct personnel affairs to the head of the Gu,” and “I have to do so. I have to hear words in the head of the Gu office, “I have to do so,” and “I have to do so in the same place, I have to do so,” and “I have to do so, I have to do so,” and “I have to do so, I have to do so. I have made a statement at the court below, but I have received money from the head of the Gu office, and I have understood that I have received money from the head of the Gu office on 20 days after 20 days after 20 days after 20 days after 20 days after 20 days after 30 days after 20 days after the public opinion.

5. The above statements made by ○○○○○○○○ and the above statements made by Defendant 1 and 2 as well as the above statements made by 0○○○○○ and the above statements made by 2 as well as 18:00 hours before the withdrawal of the public official. ② Yellow Cross 2 attempted to have money from 0○○○○ and the head of the Gu at the trial court, and there is no telephone call, and there is no way to reverse the above statements made by ○○○○○○ and the Defendant before having money to 9: the above statements made by 0○○○○ and the above statements made by 2 as hearsay evidence; see Supreme Court Decision 200Da166, supra, it is hard to view that the above statements made by 0○○○ and the public prosecutor were admissible as evidence for 6 months after the above statements made by 0○○○ and the above statements made by 1 as evidence.

(C) 00, which had been the head of the office of 00 ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s statement, took place at the prosecution’s 0-day office’s 0-day office’s 0-day office’s 0-day office’s 0-day office’s 0-day office’s 0-day office’s 0-day office’s 0-day office’s 0-day office’s 0-day office’s 0-day office’s 0-day office’s 0-day office’s 0-day office’s 0-day office’s 0-day office’s 0-day office’s 0-day office’s 0-day office’s 0-day office’s 0-day office’s 0-day office’s 0-day office’s 0-day office’s 0-day office’s 0-day office’s 0-day office’s 2 statement.

(3) Other evidence also seems insufficient to be admitted as evidence of guilt or to have no value of evidence, and there is no other evidence sufficient to recognize the facts charged of this case. Thus, it is difficult to view that the facts charged of this case was sufficiently proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt.

E. Sub-committee

Therefore, although the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of a crime under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the court below erred in the misunderstanding of facts, and the defendant's assertion pointing this out is with merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the defendant's appeal is well-grounded, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is again decided as follows

The summary of the facts charged in this case is the same as that of the above 2-A, which constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime as seen in the above 2-b, d, and e, a judgment of not guilty under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Judges Yoon Jin-heer

Judge Oral Rule