The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Although the gist of the grounds for appeal can sufficiently recognize the Defendant’s deception, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and thereby acquitted the Defendant.

2. In light of the fact that the criminal appellate court has the nature as an ex post facto trial and that it has the spirit of the principle of substantial direct examination under the Criminal Procedure Act, in a case where the first instance court rendered a not guilty verdict of the charges on the ground that there is insufficient evidence to exclude a reasonable doubt after undergoing the examination of evidence, such as the examination of witness, if it does not reach the extent that it can sufficiently resolve the reasonable doubt that the first instance court caused the lack of evidence to prove the crime, such circumstance alone does not lead to the conclusion that there was an error of misunderstanding of facts in the judgment of the first instance court, and thus, it shall not be found guilty of the charges (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do14516, Apr. 28, 2016). Examining the circumstances stated by the lower court and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court’s judgment is

There is no reasonable circumstance to deem that the argument leading to the fact-finding is remarkably unfair due to the violation of logical and empirical rules, etc.

Rather, according to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the trial court, it is only recognized that the defendant remitted 64,346,567 won including the instant money to the J in the course of purchasing the vehicle in fact.

Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

However, in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, there are various circumstances in which 10 copies of the judgment of the court below are “All the same.”