The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles) and I’s statements made by the victim and the witness of the court below are consistent with the main contents thereof. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, such as the statement, the defendant may recognize the fact of deceiving the victim as stated in the facts charged in the

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. In a criminal trial, the conviction of guilt should be based on evidence with probative value, which could lead a judge to feel true that the facts charged are not likely to have a reasonable doubt. Unless such proof is given, the conviction of the defendant cannot be determined even if there is a suspicion of guilt against the defendant.

In addition, in light of the fact that the criminal appellate court has the character as a post-examination even after the fact, and the spirit of substantial direct trial as provided in the Criminal Procedure Act, there is a lack of evidence to exclude a reasonable doubt after the first instance court has gone through the examination of evidence such as the examination of witness.

In a case where a not-guilty verdict is rendered on the facts charged, if it does not reach the extent that it can sufficiently resolve the reasonable doubt raised by the first instance trial even if the probability or doubt about some opposing facts may be raised as a result of the appellate trial’s examination, there is an error of mistake in the determination of facts in the first instance judgment, which lacks proof of crime solely

Recognizing that the facts charged are not found guilty (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do8610, Apr. 15, 2016). B. The lower court, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, is difficult to believe that each of the above statements is inconsistent with the statements made by the victim and I, and the following circumstances recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court.