beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal posted an advertisement stating that, while operating Jeju-si B (hereinafter “the instant accommodation”) and operating Jeju-si B, the Defendant received 15,000 won for each guest accommodation, other than accommodation charges, and provided stone service.
After re-verification of whether the Defendant will do so to the guests who reported the above advertising and found the instant broadcast room, the Defendant provided the instant broadcast room by reporting the head of the Gu directly for the relevant guests.
Therefore, although the Defendant is deemed to have operated a general restaurant in the instant box, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts.
2. Determination
A. The establishment of facts constituting an offense in a criminal trial ought to be based on strict evidence with probative value, which leads a judge to have a reasonable doubt, insofar as the prosecutor’s proof does not sufficiently reach the extent that such conviction would lead to such a conviction, even if the defendant’s assertion or defense is inconsistent or unreasonable, it should be determined in the interests of the defendant, even if there is suspicion of guilt, such as the defendant’s assertion or defense is inconsistent or unreasonable.
B. The lower court determined that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was insufficient to prove the facts charged of the instant case, taking into account the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and examined: (a) the type of accommodation business of the instant case where the Defendant was operated, (b) the Defendant did not seem to have played a leading role in the process of viewing the head or preparing food with the guests; and (c) even if considering the general characteristics of accommodation facilities, the Defendant appears to have played a leading role, such as gathering money voluntarily and reporting the head of the facility.
C. The judgment of the court below is legitimate.