The court below found guilty of the part of the facts charged on the ground that G submitted a written application to the court below to the effect that it did not receive KRW 20 million and KRW 30 million from the Defendant and made a statement to the same purport in the court of original instance, even if G submitted the written application to the court below to the effect that it did not have received KRW 20 million from the Defendant and KRW 30 million from the Defendant, as well as in the first instance court and the appellate court of this case since G investigation agency, and the first instance court of this case provide a specific and consistent statement that it received money from the Defendant, as well as in the first instance court and the appellate court of this case, it is proved that the considerable part of its statement is consistent with objective facts; ② the reasons for reversal of G’s statement that it would be corrected at the time of the original trial; ③ G’s reversal of its statement that it received KRW 20 million and KRW 30 million from the Defendant in a criminal case against it became final and conclusive, etc.

The judgment below

In light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below erred by violating logical and empirical rules and exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, or by misapprehending the Supreme Court precedents on the degree of proof for conviction in a criminal trial, or by violating the standard of determining the credibility of the statement on receiving money when there is no physical evidence, such as financial data, in the case where the issue is whether to receive money or not, or by the statement of the person who received money several times, rejected the considerable credibility of the statement, the remaining elements for finding guilty.