식품위생법위반
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The lower court acquitted the Defendant of the instant facts charged, despite the fact that D, who committed the instant violation in multiplescopies operated by the Defendant, was an employee of the Defendant.
2. Determination
A. The burden of proof for the criminal facts prosecuted in a criminal trial is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction is to be based on the evidence of probative value that makes the judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, the defendant is suspected to be guilty, even if there is no such evidence.
Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Do9633 Decided November 11, 2010, etc.). B.
According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the trial court, the following facts are acknowledged: (a) around 12:30 on May 5, 2018, D is recognized: (b) while having contacted E as a guest, he/she was in contact with E, and (c) having sent time to a nearby restaurant; and (d) having received KRW 20,000 from E as the preserving gap.
C. However, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the lower court, it is difficult to view that D’s aforementioned act was proven without reasonable doubt, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and it cannot be deemed that there was an error affecting the judgment by misunderstanding the facts, and the prosecutor's assertion is not accepted.
1 An employee means a person employed by the employer and engaged in duties under a contract with the employer or the employer at the place of business, etc., and D shall make oral or written statements with the accused or the person delegated by the accused.