The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor’s summary of the grounds for appeal, the fact that the Defendant received KRW 43,590,334 from the victim is sufficiently recognized on March 29, 2010 on the following grounds: (a) the Defendant borrowed money from the victim E without the intent or ability to repay it; (b) the Defendant borrowed money from the victim; (c) on March 29, 2010, the Defendant borrowed money necessary for the establishment of the corporation, used it as expenses for the establishment of the corporation

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. (1) In light of the circumstances stated in its reasoning, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s statement that lent KRW 43,590,334 to the Defendant on the date and time indicated in the instant facts charged, and determined that the remainder of the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize the instant facts charged.

(2) Criminal facts in a criminal trial shall be established based on strict evidence with probative value, which leads a judge to confluence to a reasonable doubt. Thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof fails to fully reach the extent that the defendant’s assertion or defense is inconsistent or unreasonable, it shall be determined in the interests of the defendant even if there is suspicion of guilt, such as where the defendant’s assertion or defense is inconsistent or unreasonable.

(2) In order for an appellate court to reverse the first instance court’s determination that denied the credibility of the witness statement of the first instance court in accordance with the purport of the principle of substantial direct examination adopted by the Criminal Procedure Act, the appellate court, in principle, maintains the first instance judgment, either under special circumstances to deem that the first instance judgment was clearly erroneous, or under special circumstances to consider that the first instance court’s determination was clearly erroneous, or based on the results of an additional examination of evidence conducted by the appellate court.