The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the fraud for which the court below acquitted the defendant, according to the evidence of this case, such as the victim's statement, etc., it is acknowledged that the defendant acquired 160 million won from the victim by deceiving the victim as if the defendant supplied the victim with the Abeli content of 95% as stated in this part of the facts charged.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the charged facts on the grounds of lack of proof as to the charged facts is erroneous.

(b) The sentencing division (the first instance: Imprisonment with prison labor for six months and one year after the suspension of execution);

2. Determination

A. (1) In the appellate court’s trial process, there was no new objective reason that could affect the formation of a documentary evidence, and the first instance court’s judgment was clearly erroneous.

In a case where there is no reasonable ground to deem that the argument leading to the fact-finding is remarkably unfair due to the violation of logical and empirical rules, etc., the determination on the fact-finding of the first instance court should not be reversed without permission (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031, Mar. 22, 2017). Moreover, in a criminal trial, the recognition of criminal facts ought to be based on strict evidence with probative value, which makes it difficult for a judge to have a reasonable doubt. Therefore, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof fails to sufficiently reach the extent that the aforementioned conviction is to be ensured, the determination should be made in the interest of the Defendant even if there is doubt of guilt, such as that the Defendant’s assertion or defense is inconsistent or unreasonable.

(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the health department and the lower court, based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, on the part of “judgment” as referred to in Article 2(2) of the acquitted part of the judgment, is sufficient to have reasonable doubt as to the facts charged.