The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In full view of the circumstances such as the credibility of the above statement as the victim’s statement is consistent and consistent with the gist of the grounds for appeal (fact-finding) and the existence of evidence, and the defendant’s failure to obtain the consent of the victim as well as other equity right holders, it is recognized that the defendant arbitrarily sold other athletes as stated in the facts charged without the consent of the victim.

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 a case where the first instance court rendered a judgment not guilty of the facts charged on the ground that there is insufficient evidence to exclude reasonable doubt after undergoing the examination of evidence, such as the examination of witness, in light of the fact that the criminal appellate court has the character as a post-trial trial even after deceiving the Defendant, and the spirit of substantial direct cross-examination under the Criminal Procedure Act, etc., the first instance court may raise probability or doubt as to the facts that

Even if it does not reach the extent of sufficiently resolving the reasonable doubt caused by the first instance trial, such circumstance alone alone alone does not readily conclude that there was an error of misunderstanding of facts in the judgment of the first instance court that lack of proof of crime (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do11428, Feb. 18, 2016). In full view of the circumstances in the judgment, the lower court may not recognize the Defendant as guilty of the facts charged by deeming that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone contains the victim’s share.