The judgment below

The non-guilty part is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Under the current Criminal Procedure Act, an appellate court shall be based on the inner jurisdiction, but the so-called ex post facto review character, which has a substantial part of the ex post facto core elements, and when determining the legitimacy of the judgment of the first instance court in the appellate court, the characteristics of such instance structure should be considered.

Therefore, even though there is no new objective reason to affect the formation of a documentary evidence in the trial process, when the appellate court intends to conduct a re-evaluation of the first trial and ex post facto determination, there is a reasonable ground to deem that the first trial judgment was clearly erroneous, or that the argument leading to the acknowledgement of facts is considerably unfair due to the violation of logical and empirical rules, etc. In addition, the appellate court should not reverse without delay the judgment on the recognition of facts in the first trial without any such exceptional circumstance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 82Do2829, Apr. 26, 1983; 96Do2461, Dec. 6, 196). This accords with the principle of substantial psychological principle that the conviction or innocence in a criminal case should be formed by a court-oriented trial, and that only the evidence directly examined in the presence of a judge should be considered as the basis of a trial directly conducted in the presence of a judge.

2. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the summary of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) against the victim E is the Defendant’s intent to proceed with his/her business by using the H building owned by the F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”) in the operation of the victim, and around August 22, 2012, the Defendant disposed of “H building on the face of the owner of the building,” and paid KRW 3,101,939,295 in total to the victim by December 31, 2012, KRW 3,101,939,295 in sum to the victim by December 31, 2012 (hereinafter “K”), and paid KRW 385,00,000,000 of the outstanding amount of K’s construction and the outstanding amount of the construction work (hereinafter “the foregoing amount and the outstanding amount”).