201 Do 7964 Ga, Do 7964

(b) Property in breach of trust;

1. A;

2. A. B

Prosecutor (as to Defendant B)

Law Firm (LLC) G (Attorney H, I, and BP in charge)

(for Defendant B)

Government Local Court Decision 2010No 2828 decided June 2, 2011

May 9, 2013

all appeals shall be dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are determined.

The issue at issue is whether the defendant, who was called as the number of head of the gold in the instant case, denies the receipt of this case, and there is no objective evidence such as financial data to support this, the defendant's statement of the person who provided the gold must not only have the ability to provide this evidence, but also have credibility to exclude a reasonable doubt. In determining the credibility of the statement, there is not only the rationality, objective reasonableness of the statement itself, the consistency before and after, and the consistency of the statement, but also there is a relation of understanding that he/she is his/her human being, in particular, there is a suspicion of a crime against him/her, and there is a possibility that an investigation may be initiated on the charge, or during the course of the investigation.

In a case where there is a doubt about intimidation, reply, etc. using it, and thus, if it does not reach the extent to which the admissibility of the statement is denied, it is also necessary to examine whether the efforts to escape from the place where the statement might affect this statement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2008Do8137, Jan. 15, 2009; 2010Do1153, Jan. 27, 201).

Examining the reasoning of the original judgment in light of the above legal principles and evidence duly adopted by the original judgment, it is reasonable to reverse the judgment of the first instance that found Defendant A guilty of the fact that the instant money against Defendant B was not reliable in the prosecutor’s statement by Defendant A, the provider of the instant case, and the remainder of the evidence alone, and that it was insufficient to recognize the facts charged against Defendant B as to this part of the public prosecution against Defendant B on the grounds that it was insufficient to recognize the facts charged against Defendant B, and that Defendant B was guilty of the fact that the public prosecution was conducted on the charge of giving rise to breach of trust against Defendant A and the fact that the public prosecution was conducted on the charge of taking the charge of Defendant B was conducted on the charge of Defendant B, and each of the judgment of the first instance that was pronounced not guilty at this time, contrary to the logical and empirical rules, there is no error of law by failing to exhaust the limit of the attention of free trial or to complete the deliberation.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Poe-young

Justices Min Il-young

Justices Lee In-bok

Justices Kim Shin-chul