A. As to the case of the lower judgment 2016 High Order 5795, the documents on the current status of the non-influent alternative position presented by the lower court based on the conviction are inadmissible as it is impossible for the maker, etc. to know.

B. The lower court determined otherwise by misapprehending the legal doctrine, even though the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, including that the H’s statement that seems to correspond to the facts charged regarding the instant case was not reliable and there was no objective data to acknowledge it differently, and the Defendant was not found to have received KRW 24 million from the F as stated in this part of the facts charged.

(c)

The sentence of the lower court (the penalty of KRW 15 million, the penalty of KRW 24 million, and the penalty of KRW 24 million) against the illegal accused in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant

A. As to the admissibility of documents on the current status of the substitute vehicle, the identity of text information stored in the information storage medium and memory or printed documents should be recognized in order to use them as evidence. To this end, the identity of the original document stored in the information storage medium should be ensured, i.e., the integrity of the original document that was not changed from the seizure to the output of documents (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Do2511, Jul. 26, 2013). Such integrity and identity fall under the requirement of admissibility of evidence, and thus the prosecutor should assert and prove the existence of the document. However, since this is related to facts in litigation, it is sufficient for the prosecutor to prove it free of charge without any strict certification (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Do2937, Jul. 26, 2012). 207; the alternative document of this case appears to be identical to the original document stored in the Seoul office’s search or seizure file; and it appears to be identical to the original document of the Seoul office’s search or seizure.