배임수재
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case on the ground that C’s statement to the effect that the Defendant provided money and valuables was not reliable, despite its credibility, such as consistent with objective data, such as the content of withdrawal from the account and the order letter, etc., is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. In light of the content of the first instance judgment and the evidence examined by the first instance court, unless there exist special circumstances to deem that the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the first instance was clearly erroneous, or in view of the results of the first instance examination and the results of additional examination of evidence conducted by the time the closing of argument in the appellate trial, maintaining the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the first instance court is obviously unfair, the appellate court should not reverse the first instance judgment on the sole ground that the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the first instance is different from that of the appellate court’s judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4994, Nov. 24, 2006). The burden of proving the facts charged in a criminal trial is proven by the prosecutor, and the conviction should be based on evidence having probative value that causes the judge to have a conviction that the facts charged are true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt for guilt. Thus, if there is no doubt against the defendant.
Even if the interests of the defendant should be judged as the interests of the defendant
(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Do9633 Decided November 11, 2010, etc.). B.
Of the facts charged in this case, evidence directly corresponding to C’s evidence and the part on the acceptance of the defendant’s evidence has been stated in C’s court and investigation agency, and each of the other is related to the delivery of each of the facts charged in this case.