The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts), although the defendant sufficiently recognized that he purchased philophones from E on three occasions at each of the facts charged in this case, the court below acquitted all of the facts charged, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. In a criminal trial, criminal facts must be acknowledged by strict evidence having probative value, which makes a judge not to have any reasonable doubt. Thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof does not sufficiently reach the extent that it would lead to such conviction, even if there is suspicion of guilt, such as the defendant’s assertion or defense contradictory or uncomfortable amnesty, it should be determined in the interests of the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Do774, Nov. 29, 2007; 2010Do1487, Apr. 28, 2011). (b) The court below directly observed the appearance where the defendant’s telephone addiction was seriously affected by the testimony of E, namely, according to the reasons indicated in its reasoning, E, and E was directly witnessed where E was administered with a phiphone purchased by the defendant immediately after the date of paragraph (3) of the facts charged.

The testimony was made, however, five times more close to the date and time indicated in the instant facts charged, including paragraph 3 of the facts charged, in the inspection of narcotics, fluorals, and fluorals, all of which consisted of “the voice” in the five-time drug inspection, and the first category of E, etc. identified as the upper line, was punished or not prosecuted for the act of selling fluorals to E, and there are many financial transactions between the Defendant and E. There are less credibility of the statement on fluorals. Among them, there are the details remitted to the Defendant or the contents irrelevant to fluorals, and there are circumstances in which E requests the payment of fluorals, etc. by using a fluoral relationship with the Defendant, and E’s request for the payment of fluorals, and