The part against Defendant A is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

With respect to the first ground of appeal, in a case where the defendant, who was designated as the recipient of money in the crime at issue of receiving money, denies the receipt of money in time and there is no physical evidence, such as financial data to support this, in order to find him guilty only by the statement of the donor of money, there is not only the admissibility of evidence, but also the credibility to exclude a reasonable doubt. In determining whether the credibility exists, not only the rationality, objective reasonableness, and consistency of the contents of the statement itself, but also its human being and whether there is an interest in the statement should also be examined.

(2) The court below held that Defendant B provided a false statement to Defendant A with a total of KRW 210 million on five occasions in essential parts, although there is no special reason to make a false statement, and there is no simple error from the investigative agency to the court, and the substantial part of the part from the investigation agency to the court. However, each of the statements is specific to the extent that it is not possible for Defendant A to directly experience, and it does not go against objective facts or rule of experience. The statement on the source of funds delivered by Defendant B corresponds to the statement of the relevant persons who lent money to Defendant B. The court below actively held that Defendant B provided a false statement in light of the following facts: (a) the process of raising money and valuables; (b) the place and amount of money delivery; and (c) the method of delivery; (d) the statement on the source of funds delivered by Defendant B corresponds to the statement of the relevant persons; and (e) the statement on May 21, 2010, supported Defendant B’s recording and X, AA’s statement; and (e) the credibility of Defendant N’s election support activities.