beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence presented by the Prosecutor as to the gist of the grounds for appeal, D has committed occupational breach of trust, and the Defendant is fully aware of the fact that D actively participated in the occupational breach of trust beyond the simple degree of tolerance.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. The burden of proof for the criminal facts prosecuted in a criminal trial is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction of guilt is to be based on the evidence of probative value, which makes the judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. If there is no evidence to establish such a degree of conviction, it is doubtful that the defendant is guilty even if there is no evidence to establish such a conviction.
Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.
(See Supreme Court Decision 9Do4305 delivered on February 25, 2000, etc.). B.
In light of the above legal principles, a thorough examination of the evidence of this case in light of the records, the court below is just and acceptable to determine that the facts charged of this case constitute a case where there is no proof of a crime, and there is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, by misunderstanding the facts. It is hard to see that the court below, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, proved that D, with the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, obtained a total of KRW 136.76 million from the defendant's breach of duty, obtained a profit, and suffered a loss equivalent to the above amount. Even if a contract was entered into with a certain amount of excessive price, it is difficult to see that the defendant was recruited by actively participating in the act of breach of trust in excess of the passive response at D's price proposal.
. Prosecutors;