The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the victim B’s statement that the use of KRW 100 million that the victim B paid to the Defendant in three installments from August 6, 2014 to August 11, 2014 is reasonable and reliable; (b) while the victim’s statement that the use of KRW 100,000,000 paid to the Defendant is “in the name of introduction to persons who assist in funeral home business” is reasonable and reliable; (c) on the other hand, the Defendant’s assertion that “all kinds of expenses necessary to promote business along with the date of introduction” is not reliable;

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the charged facts of this case on the ground that there is no proof of crime.

① Contents of the instant trade agreement: (a) the proviso to Article 2 of the instant trade agreement provides that “The Defendant recognizes only the expenses incurred by clear data, such as tax invoices, with respect to the expenses incurred by the Defendant,” and that various expenses incurred by the Defendant shall be subject to ex post facto settlement through the evidentiary procedure.

Nevertheless, the defendant's assertion that the victim permits the defendant to use the money that is close to KRW 100 million for expenses without any supporting material is not persuasive.

② When and how the victim paid KRW 100 million to the Defendant: The Defendant and the victim are partners liable to make an investment by 50% each, and the victim, after concluding a partnership agreement on July 29, 2014, had already been transferred to G on August 6, 2014 under the terms and conditions of the agreement to G as a deposit, but did not perform any investment obligation even at the time of the Defendant.

Under these circumstances, the defendant was allowed to pay KRW 100 million separately to the defendant who did not perform any investment obligation until August 11, 2014 and use it for expenses and others.