The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

It is recognized that the Defendant promised to lend money to the victim under the name of the site expenses by making a subsequent change in the construction amount, and to repay it. Furthermore, the Defendant notified the victim of the false fact as to the purpose of the borrowed money, and the Defendant did not seem to have the ability to increase the construction cost through the change in the design of the instant construction project. Therefore, the facts charged in the instant case are found guilty.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant is erroneous.

2. Determination

A. In a criminal trial, the finding of guilt ought to be based on evidence of probative value, which leads a judge to have the conviction that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, the doubt of guilt against the defendant is doubtful even if there is no such evidence.

Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.

B. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do8675, Mar. 9, 2006).

In light of the following circumstances: (a) the victim’s statement, which is direct evidence consistent with the facts charged, is not consistent with the victim’s statement; (b) the defendant, while recognizing the fact that he received money from the victim as a field guard, does not promise to return it; (c) the F’s statement is consistent with the Defendant’s assertion; and (d) the victim’s statement does not have to demand the return of the money as stated in the facts charged until the complaint was filed; and (e) there is no difference in the fact that

C. The following circumstances revealed by the records revealed by the court below, i.e., the defendant was the internal director of the corporation B (hereinafter “B”) who received a contract for the instant construction from the Ulsan Nam-gu Office.