The conviction in a criminal trial shall be based on evidence with probative value sufficient to have a judge correct doubt that the facts charged are true, and if there is no such proof, even if there is doubt of guilt against the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Do2823, Aug. 21, 2001; 2005Do8675, Mar. 9, 2006). Furthermore, the selection of evidence and probative value of evidence conducted on the premise of fact-finding belong to the free judgment of the fact-finding court (Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act). The lower court, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, proved without reasonable doubt that KRW 200,000, which the prosecutor submitted by the prosecutor, was a quid pro quo for referral of the public official in charge of tax investigation.

In determining that it is insufficient to view it, the Prosecutor’s misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles did not accept the grounds of appeal.

The allegation in the grounds of appeal is the purport of disputing such fact-finding by the lower court, and it is nothing more than disputing the lower court’s determination on the selection and probative value of evidence, which belongs to the free judgment of the fact-finding court. In light of the aforementioned legal principles, relevant legal principles, and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal principles on violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (EAV) or omitting judgment, or by exceeding the bounds of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, as

The Supreme Court precedents cited on the grounds of appeal are different from the instant case, and thus are inappropriate to be invoked in the instant case.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.