1. As to Defendant 1’s ground of appeal

Articles 307(1) and 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act provide that facts shall be acknowledged based on evidence, and the probative value of such evidence shall be based on the discretion of the judge. Accordingly, the selection of evidence and evaluation thereof shall be based on the discretion of the court of fact-finding unless it exceeds the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, and the court of final appeal shall be bound by this.

For the reasons indicated in its reasoning, the lower court found Defendant 1 guilty of all the charges of taking property in breach of trust by Nonindicted Party and Defendant 2 among the charges against Defendant 1. Examining the record, the lower court’s determination is not deemed to have exceeded the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence as to the fact-finding, without failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal. In addition, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on illegal solicitation and intent of taking

2. As to Defendant 2’s ground of appeal

Article 357(1) of the Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 14178, May 29, 2016) provides for the crime of taking property in breach of trust under Article 357(1) and the crime of taking property in breach of trust under Article 357(2) and (3) provides, “The property acquired by the criminal shall be confiscated. If it is impossible to confiscate the property or any pecuniary benefit is acquired, the equivalent value thereof shall be collected shall be collected.” The crime of taking property in breach of trust and taking property in breach of trust are so-called a so-called large-called crime, and the crime of taking property in breach of trust and taking property in breach of trust is aimed at preventing a person from possessing unlawful profits by deprived of the property and pecuniary benefit provided for the crime. Thus, “property acquired by the criminal” under Article 3(3) provides for the crime of taking property in breach of trust refers only to the property acquired by the criminal in breach of trust only to the property acquired by the criminal in the crime of taking property in breach of trust, and thus, the equivalent value of property shall be collected from the person.

The allegation in the grounds of appeal is without merit or purport that, in a case where the property is returned as it is, not only the inquiree but also the person who has suffered the property, confiscation or collection cannot be made. The court below was just in collecting 50 million won from Defendant 2, and it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on collection in the crime of giving rise to breach of trust, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds

3. As to the Prosecutor’s Grounds of Appeal

A. The recognition of facts and the selection and evaluation of evidence conducted on the premise thereof belong to the exclusive jurisdiction of the fact-finding court, and the court of final appeal is bound by the principle of free evaluation of evidence. In addition, the recognition of criminal facts in a criminal trial ought to be based on strict evidence with probative value, which makes a judge not to have any reasonable doubt. In a case where the prosecutor’s proof does not reach the degree to have such conviction, it should be determined favorably to the Defendant even if there is room for suspecting the Defendant.

B. Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court acquitted Defendant 1 on the ground that there was no proof of each crime on the obstruction of business among the facts charged against Defendant 1, Defendant 3’s possession of property in breach of trust, and charges against Defendant 3.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles as to a person who administers another’s business in the crime of deception, taking property in breach of trust,

C. The prosecutor appealed against the entire judgment of the court below against Defendant 1, but the guilty part does not contain legitimate grounds of appeal in the petition of appeal, and the appellate brief does not contain any grounds of appeal.

4. Conclusion

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

Justices Park Poe-young (Presiding Justice)