All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

In full view of the evidence, which corresponds to the facts charged against Defendant B, the court below acquitted Defendant B of the violation of the Act on Promotion of Game Industry of Defendant A, despite the fact that Defendant B aided and abetted the violation of the Act on Promotion of Game Industry of Defendant A. The court below erred in the misapprehension of facts.

The sentence of the lower court (two years of suspended execution, etc. in October) against Defendant A is too unhued and unfair.

Judgment

In a criminal trial on the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts (as to Defendant B), the recognition of facts must be based on strict evidence with probative value, which makes a judge not to have any reasonable doubt. Thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof fails to sufficiently reach the extent that such conviction would lead to such conviction, even if there is doubt of guilt, such as that the defendant’s assertion or defense is contradictory or unreasonable, it should be determined in the interests of the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do1487, Apr. 28, 201). In addition, in a criminal appellate trial, the appellate trial has the character as a follow-up trial, and in light of the spirit of substantial direct trial as prescribed in the Criminal Procedure Act, there is insufficient proof to exclude reasonable doubt after undergoing the examination of evidence, such as 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

The facts charged shall not be found guilty.