A. In full view of the evidence consistent with the facts charged in the instant case of mistake of facts, the Defendant may recognize the fact that the Defendant deceivings the victim as stated in the facts charged and acquired money in the name of the borrowed money.

B. M&A’s materials submitted by the Defendant by misunderstanding legal principles are without the prosecutor’s consent under Article 318(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and thus, it cannot be the grounds for innocence.

(Violation of rules of evidence collection) 2. Determination

A. 1) In a criminal trial on the assertion of mistake of facts, the recognition of facts in the relevant legal doctrine ought to be based on strict evidence with probative value, which makes a judge not to have any reasonable doubt. Thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof does not sufficiently reach the extent to have the aforementioned conviction, even if there is suspicion of guilt, such as the defendant’s assertion or defense contradictory or uncomfortable dismissal, the determination ought to be made in the interests of the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do1487, Apr. 28, 201). In addition, in light of the fact that the criminal appellate trial has the character as an ex post facto trial even though it belongs to the court, and the spirit of the substantial direct and psychological principle as prescribed in the Criminal Procedure Act, etc., in a case where the first instance court acquitted the defendant of the facts charged on the grounds that there is insufficient evidence to exclude a reasonable doubt after undergoing the examination of evidence, such as the examination of the witness, etc., even if there is no probability or doubt regarding the facts opposeded after the appellate trial’s examination.