beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (in fact-finding) lies in the credibility of the statement to the investigation agency of the J, which corresponds to the facts charged in the instant case, and the statement in the court of original instance at the court of original instance that is inconsistent with the above facts charged in the instant case is not reliable. The court below deemed that the statement in the investigation agency of the J is not reliable, and on the ground that other evidence alone is insufficient
Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts.
2. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case was around February 21, 201, the Defendant: (a) 400,000 won from J at the place near the N’s house; (b) sold 0.3g of phi-phones to him; and (c) sold approximately 0.78g of phi-phones in total three times as indicated in the attached list 5 of crimes.
3. Determination
A. The lower court determined that, although the evidence consistent with the facts charged in the instant case was written by the J investigative agency, the lower court reversed the existing statement in the lower court court’s trial, it appears that the statement in the lower court was more reliable, and other evidence alone does not lead to the degree that the above facts charged are true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt, and that there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and thus, acquitted the Defendant.
B. Examining the above judgment of the court below in light of the records and legal principles of this case, a thorough examination of the above judgment of the court below is justified, and there is no error of mistake of facts as alleged by the prosecutor.
In particular, this paper examines the credibility of the statement made by the J in the investigative agency, and ① the J in the investigative agency made a statement that it purchased phiphones from the Defendant on three occasions from February 2, 201 to April 2, 201, but only purchased phiphones from the Defendant after May 201 in the court of original instance.