A. In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor with respect to the fraud of the victim’s name in the facts charged in the instant case of mistake of facts, the fact that the precious metal collected by the Defendant was taken out by the victim from the total liability of the name in which “M” is used can be sufficiently recognized.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution, probation, and community service order 160 hours) is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The burden of proving the facts charged in a criminal trial is borne by the prosecutor. The conviction is based on evidence with probative value, which makes the judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. If there is no evidence to establish a conviction to such an extent, even if there is doubt as to the defendant’s guilt, it is inevitable to determine the defendant’s interest (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Do4305, Feb. 25, 2000) in light of the above legal principles (see, e.g., the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence of this case, namely, ① the process of the defendant’s participation and abnormal delivery of precious metals conducted by the prosecutor, etc. (i) the circumstance acknowledged by the evidence of this case, i.e., the process of delivery of precious metals collected by the defendant to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt as to the fact that the victim was released from the full liability of name “M” by the prosecutor, and (ii) the fact that there is no injury to the taxi and its adjacent to the police station around February 37, 2019.