The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is consistent from the investigative agency to consistently read the contents of the cash custody certificate of this case to the defendant, and D also testified in conformity with C's statement that the defendant appeared to have been given a clear seal to the paper that C brought about. However, the court below rejected the credibility of each statement of C and D solely on the ground that the part of the paper form in D's statement differs from the paper form of the cash custody certificate of this case, and rejected the defendant's appeal against the facts charged of this case, and acquitted the defendant on the charge of this case by misunderstanding the facts in violation of the rules of evidence, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. In light of the spirit of the principle of substantial direct examination adopted by the Korean Criminal Procedure Act, unless there are special circumstances to deem that the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the first instance was clearly erroneous, or the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the first instance is clearly unreasonable in light of the results of the first instance examination and the results of the additional examination of evidence conducted by the time the argument in the appellate trial is concluded, the appellate court should respect the judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4994 Decided November 24, 2006, etc.). B.

After examining C and D as a witness, the lower court rejected the credibility of the said witness’s statement on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning. In full view of all the circumstances asserted by the prosecutor as the grounds for appeal, the lower court clearly erred in its determination as to the credibility of each of the above statements.

It seems significantly unreasonable to maintain it as it is, and D does not testify at the court of the first instance, but also examines the paper form of cash custody certificate of this case.