The judgment below

The guilty part shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

The judgment below

part of acquittal.

The summary of the grounds for appeal: The punishment sentenced by the court below to the defendant (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

With respect to the violation of law and embezzlement in the facts charged in this case as to the prosecutor's mistake of the facts, the following circumstances acknowledged by evidence, namely, ① partially reversed the statement concerning the amount of money that the donor AE and the delivery place, but the core fact that AD delivered money for the purpose of investigation solicitation, agreement gold, and completion of sexual public bulletin, ② in particular, AD delivered money to the third party who delivered the money, and there is no motive to make a false statement, so it shall not be easily rejected the credibility of the statement, ③ evidence supporting AE and AD's statements (the account withdrawal details, currency details, AM's statement, etc.) are sufficient. In light of the following circumstances, the suspicion of violation of law and embezzlement against the defendant is sufficiently recognized. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant as to this part of the facts charged is erroneous.

The sentence sentenced by the court below against the defendant is too unfortunate.

Judgment

The lower court’s determination as to the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of the facts should be based on strict evidence with probative value, which leads to a judge to have a reasonable doubt, in a criminal trial of the legal doctrine at the time of the sale thereof. Therefore, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof fails to sufficiently reach the extent that such conviction would lead to such a conviction, even if there is doubt of guilt, such as the defendant’s assertion or defense contradictory or uncomfortable dismissal, it should be determined as the Defendant’s interest (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do1487, Apr. 28, 2011). Meanwhile, in a case where the issue of whether to accept money or valuables is at issue, the Defendant, who was identified as the recipient of money or valuables, is denied.