The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) consistently stated that D received the instant money from the Defendant in return for the waiver of the withdrawal of the president of the association. In light of the following: (a) despite having received a summary order in relation to this, D has made a statement consistent with the facts charged; (b) he has made a statement that corresponds to the facts charged; and (c) in the criminal case related to India, the Defendant did not deny the instant money borrowed in the instant case; and (d) has not consistently rejected the fact of borrowing; and (b) the Defendant has consistently made a statement, such as denying the fact of borrowing.

However, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant.

2. Determination

A. The establishment of facts constituting an offense in a criminal trial ought to be based on strict evidence with probative value, which makes a judge not to have any reasonable doubt. Thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof fails to sufficiently reach the extent that the defendant’s assertion or defense is inconsistent or unreasonable, it should be determined in the interests of the defendant even if there is suspicion of guilt, such as the defendant’s assertion or defense is inconsistent or unreasonable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do5662, Dec. 24, 2002). Meanwhile, in a case where the issue is whether to accept money or valuables is raised, the defendant’s statement made by the person who provided money or valuables is denied the receipt of the money or valuables and there is no objective evidence, such as financial materials to support it, in order to acknowledge guilt, the statement must be admissible as well as the statement made by the person who provided the money or valuables, and when determining credibility, it should be obtained not only the rationality, objective reasonableness, and consistency of the contents itself, but also its human interests.