2. Determination

A. The lower court, based on its stated reasoning, sufficiently proven the facts charged in the instant case to the extent that the evidence presented by the prosecutor alone was sufficiently proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

It is difficult to see

Based on the judgment, the defendant was acquitted.

B. The following circumstances, recognized by the record, (i) the statement made by F on the date and time when the philophone was issued by the Defendant, (ii) the F did not administer philophones for not less than 10 years, and (iii) was administered in custody for not less than one month without immediately administering philophones issued by the Defendant:

Since the statement was made, the date of issuance and the date of medication are very important parts in judging the credibility of the F testimony, and ② the F is present at the court of original instance as a witness and, unlike the above statement in the investigative agency, there was a fact that the F purchased phiphones and administered them before the date stated in the facts charged.

“The statement to the effect that the monetary transaction details, which appears to support this argument, appear to be irrelevant to the crime of purchasing phiphones in light of the testimony of the witness I of the original trial. ③ The defendant and F had been engaged in many business exchanges around the time indicated in the facts charged, so it is difficult to deem the telephone communications details alone to be a direct evidence of the facts charged in the instant case, ④ in light of the contents of meetings with F and G, the F had a malicious sentiment against the defendant, or had a false information in order to take them as favorable sentencing materials in their own trial, ⑤.