beta
Text
The judgment below
Among them, the part against Defendant A and N, and the violation of the Political Funds Act of Defendant M, and the third-party brain delivery crime.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).
1. As to Defendant A’s violation of the Political Funds Act, the acquisition of third-party brain, the violation of the Political Funds Act by Defendant M, the delivery of third-party brain, and the violation of the Political Funds Act by Defendant N
A. (1) In a criminal trial, criminal facts should be found based on strict evidence of probative value, which leads a judge to have a reasonable doubt. Thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof is not sufficiently enough to have the aforementioned conviction, 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 contradictory or uncomfortable dismissal.
On the other hand, in a case where the issue is whether to accept money or valuables, and the defendant's statement, which was identified as the recipient of money or valuables, denies the fact of receiving money or valuables, are found guilty on the sole basis of the statement made by the person who provided the money or valuables, there should be admissibility of evidence, and there should be credibility excluding a reasonable doubt. When determining credibility, not only the rationality, objective reasonableness, consistency before and after the contents of the statement itself, but also its human beings, and in particular, there should be doubts about the existence of a criminal suspicion against him/her and there is a possibility that an investigation may be initiated against him/her, or in the course of an investigation, if there is a possibility that the admissibility of the statement would be denied, and even if there is a suspicion that he/she might not reach the extent that the admissibility of the statement is denied, there should also be a possibility that his/her efforts may affect
(See Supreme Court Decisions 200Do5701 Decided June 11, 2002; 2008Do8137 Decided January 15, 2009, etc.). (2)