The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (fact-finding) argues that the Defendant received KRW 20 million from B as a job placement expense for the construction site in connection with the development project in the state of leisure (hereinafter “instant project”) and changed the assertion that the Defendant received money in the public trial stage under the pretext that he would contract the construction work related to the said development project when the joint development contract was submitted. D stated that the Defendant did not prepare for the actual development project and construction work and did not receive money at the time of the instant case because he did not receive money for the construction right. According to the above contract, according to the above contract, the Defendant, as a general manager, has to start the construction work at the same time after the approval of the construction permit, and has failed to perform it despite the obligation to raise all the project funds, such as the land lot and construction cost, as the facts charged in the instant case, it is recognized that the Defendant acquired money by deceiving the Defendant as a job manager.

2. The recognition 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 fully 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 where the defendant’s assertion or defense is inconsistent or unreasonable.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do14487, Apr. 28, 2011). In addition, in light of the fact that the Criminal Appeal Court has the character as an ex post facto trial even after deceiving the Defendant, and the spirit of substantial direct and psychological principle under the Criminal Procedure Act, etc., the first instance court acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged on the ground that there is insufficient proof to exclude a reasonable doubt after undergoing the examination of evidence, such as the examination of witness.