The judgment below

The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

The defendant is innocent. The defendant is innocent.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

There is no fact that the defendant gives or receives KRW 5 million from C as stated in the facts charged, and there is no evidence to prove it.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (the imprisonment for eight months, the suspension of the execution of two years, the fine of ten million won) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

A. Criminal facts in a criminal trial should be established based on strict evidence with probative value, which leads a judge to have a reasonable doubt, and thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof fails to sufficiently reach the extent that the defendant’s assertion or defense is inconsistent or unreasonable, it should 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.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do14487, Apr. 28, 2011). In order for a defendant to be found guilty solely on the statement made by a person who provided money in a case where the issue is whether to receive or receive money is the issue, where the defendant denies the fact of receiving money, and there is no objective evidence, such as financial data to support this, the evidence should be admissible, and there should be credibility to exclude a reasonable doubt. When determining credibility, not only the rationality, objective reasonableness, and consistency in the contents of the statement itself, but also its human beings; in particular, the existence of an interest gained from the statement; and in cases where there is a suspicion of a crime committed against him/her and there is a possibility that an investigation is being conducted against him/her; or where there is a suspicion that the crime is being conducted, the admissibility of the statement does not reach the extent that the admissibility of evidence is denied.