The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the prosecutor's appeal grounds: The defendant's statement of misunderstanding G and F is reliable; L and W's statement also conforms to G's statement; L and W's conclusion of L's contract with L's executor of the instant improvement project; and the sale on G's first floor and the first floor of the newly constructed building of the instant improvement project to G is sufficiently recognized in light of the fact that the defendant received bribe from G.

The lower court erred by mistake.

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined that comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances as indicated in its reasoning, based on the legal doctrine regarding the principle of the burden of proof of criminal evidence and the criteria for determining the credibility of statements, the lower court proved that the evidence submitted by G, L’s statement, and other prosecutor on February 24, 2012 alone was proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt.

It is insufficient to view that the rest of the evidence submitted by G, W, and F are proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt with respect to the acceptance of bribery around April 5, 2012 and around July 27, 2012.

The lower court acquitted the Defendant on the ground that it was insufficient to view.

B. In the instant court’s judgment, the conviction in a criminal trial ought to be based on evidence of 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 to which the conviction would lead to such conviction, the determination ought to be made in the interest of the defendant even if he/she was suspected of guilt (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do13416, Jul. 24, 2014). In addition to the circumstances indicated by the lower court, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court and this court, the said judgment by the lower court is just and acceptable, and there was a mistake of mistake of facts as

shall not be deemed to exist.

The prosecutor’s assertion.