The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. On April 9, 2014, when G delivered KRW 40 million to the Defendant, the Defendant maintained a good relationship with the Chairperson K and the Secretary H, against the Chairperson K, not the Defendant’s assertion, in light of the following: (a) it is not true that G sent the Defendant around January 2014 by G around January 2014; and (b) it is trying to assist the Defendant to smoothly proceed with the sales contract concluded by the Defendant and to trade additional land.

Since the fact of payment of KRW 5 million was issued to the defendant, the conclusion that the injured company paid KRW 40 million to the clan for the purpose of coming well to the clans cannot be derived, and the G delivered KRW 40 million to the defendant that delivered the instant KRW 40 million to the defendant that he would allow the damaged company to sell the I land in Gwangju City.

Although consistent statements have been made, the court below erred in the misapprehension of facts without thoroughly examining the contents and purport of their statements.

2. The burden of proving the facts charged in a criminal trial against the board of directors is the prosecutor, and the conviction of guilt is based on the evidence with probative value sufficient for the judge to have a reasonable doubt that the facts charged are true. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is suspicion of guilt against the defendant, it shall be determined with the benefit of the defendant.

The judgment below

According to the reasoning, the defendant would assist the defendant in selling the 40 million square meters of paper 40 million square meters in I to the auditor of the damaged company around March 2014 by delivering 20 million won to the general secretary H of the clan of this case.

The following facts are the primary charges and the facts charged: “The defrauded acquired cash amounting to KRW 40 million owned by the victimized Company on April 9, 2014 from G,” and “the instant case.”