A. Although there was a fact that the Defendant made a mistake of facts B, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged on the sole basis of B’s statement short of credibility, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, even though there was no fact that the Defendant received money and valuables four times from B as stated in its reasoning.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment, a fine of 21 million won, an additional collection of 20 million won) is unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In determining the assertion of mistake of facts, if it is judged that the defendant, who was designated as the bribe recipient, denies the receipt of the bribe at the time of the acceptance of the bribe and there is no evidence, such as financial materials to support it, if it is judged that there is credibility excluding reasonable doubts in the contents of the testimony of the bribe, the defendant can be found guilty only with the statement of the person who submitted the bribe.

However, in this case, when determining the credibility of a statement by a person who has submitted a statement, it is necessary to also examine whether there is a rationality, objective reasonableness, consistency in the previous and following statements, as well as his human nature, and in particular, there is a suspicion of a crime against him/her, and in cases where there is a possibility that an investigation may be initiated against him/her, or in cases where an investigation is being conducted on a suspicion of a crime against him/her, the admissibility of the statement may not be denied, and whether there is a possibility that efforts to escape from the place where he/she made a statement may affect the statement, even in cases where there is a suspicion that the statement is in question

(See Supreme Court Decision 2012Do14295 Decided May 29, 201, Supreme Court Decision 2010Do7947 Decided January 27, 2011, and Supreme Court Decision 2010Do15986 Decided February 10, 201, etc.). The lower court partially determined the Defendant’s statement in the lower court, B, M, N, P, Q, and R’s respective legal and prosecutorial statements, details of refund, copy of a written application for request for grievance and deferment of collection, specific information (written withdrawal of compromise), text messages, and notice of tax investigation.