The defendant has no financial ability to engage in the actual scrap metal transactions, and transactions between D and trading companies are also shown abnormal behavior.

The judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case is erroneous in the rules of evidence.

2. As seen below, it is difficult to view that the facts charged in the instant case was proven without reasonable doubt, even if the credibility of the testimony by G, I, and K in the lower court and the data to prove the actual details of transactions submitted by the Defendant is recognized, and other evidence submitted by the Prosecutor is combined.

The lower court determined that the statement in the lower court court was credibility than the statement made in the investigation agency of the above G, etc. on the ground that G, I, and K had no reason or motive to make a false statement for the Defendant even when the above G, etc., who was under execution of a sentence or suspended execution of a suspended execution of a sentence after having already been convicted of having been convicted of the same criminal facts, and the judgment of conviction was finalized in the case where G, I, and I had been prosecuted for having issued a false tax invoice to D operated by the Defendant, and K had already been convicted of the same criminal facts, and after having testified that there was an actual transaction between the Defendant and the Defendant in the lower court. In so doing, the lower court determined that D had credibility on the grounds that there was no reason or motive to make a false statement for the Defendant to be subject to punishment for perjury, etc. on the ground that D had been subject to a tax investigation in relation to the instant case. In particular, when D had a criminal investigation conducted in relation to the instant case,