Defendant

In addition, all appeals filed by both medical care and custody applicants and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant and Defendant and Defendant’s medical care and custody applicant: The punishment sentenced by the lower court (a punishment of imprisonment with prison labor for three years, confiscation, and collection KRW 100,00) is too unreasonable.

B. In full view of the evidence, such as the prosecutor 1’s statement of H’s misunderstanding of facts, credibility, and the monetary records of H’s conviction, the Defendant’s and the medical care and custody manager (hereinafter “Defendant”) are sufficiently recognized.

The lower court erred by mistake.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court is too uncomparably unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Part 1 of the case against the Prosecutor’s assertion of mistake on the facts) The lower court, on the grounds of various circumstances as indicated in its reasoning, is difficult to believe that H’s statement, the only direct evidence that corresponds to the facts charged, is the only direct evidence that conforms to the facts charged, and the reply to the request for appraisal from H’s hair and the response to the request for appraisal from H’s hair to the training of phiphonephones from H

It is difficult to see

The decision was determined.

B) In a criminal trial, the conviction in a criminal trial ought to be based on evidence having probative value, which leads to the judge to have the conviction that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof does not sufficiently reach the extent of ensuring such conviction, the determination should be made on the part of the defendant even if he/she was suspected of guilt (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do13416, Jul. 24, 2014). In full view of the circumstances indicated by the lower court and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the aforementioned determination by the lower court is reasonable and acceptable, and there is a mistake of misconception of facts as to the credibility judgment of statements and the empirical rule.

It is difficult to see it.

(1) H purchased 500,000 won from the Defendant at the original instance.

(b) purchase at all times;