All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In a criminal trial for the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (such as acceptance of materials, evidence, etc.), the recognition of criminal facts should be based on strict evidence with probative value, which makes a judge not having any reasonable doubt. Thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof fails to fully reach the degree of having the above conviction, it should be determined in the interests of the defendant even if there is a doubt of guilt, such as the defendant’s assertion or defense contradictory to or without doubt.

In addition, the above strict proof includes all the specific criminal facts as stated in the indictment by the prosecutor. In particular, since the date and place of the crime specified in the indictment is the main object of exercising the defendant's right of defense, it should be recognized through strict proof, and it should not be recognized that there is proof of criminal facts on the ground that there is a possibility that the crime was committed at other time and place despite the lack of such proof.

On the other hand, in a case where the issue is whether to accept money or valuables, the defendant's statement that was identified as the recipient of money or valuables denies the fact of the receipt, and there is no objective evidence, such as financial data to support this, in order to find the defendant guilty, there should be not only the admissibility of evidence, but also the credibility excluding a reasonable doubt. When determining credibility, there is a concern about the reasonableness, objective reasonableness, consistency before and after the contents of the statement, and the interests derived from the statement, especially in the case where there is a suspicion of a crime against him and there is a possibility that an investigation is being initiated or an investigation is being conducted on the charge.