The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the fact-finding) made a false statement by requesting A to make a false statement.

2. Among the evidence submitted by the judgment prosecutor, there is a statement A as evidence, which seems to be consistent with the facts charged, such as “The defendant would have been able to talk about the long-term sale of a mobile phone if he was a witness. C would have no fact at the time of a mobile phone,” and asked a false testimony.”

The lower court rejected the credibility of A’s statement, and based on this, presented a record of A’s currency recording, and a statement trend in investigation agencies and courts.

A’s statement that there was no perjury at the request of the defendant in the currency with the defendant, the statement that the defendant was to be introduced with female friendlys for false testimony in F and F, and the investigation agencies and legal statements of A are different, and there are no special circumstances to give credibility to investigative agencies and legal statements rather than to the recording statement.

It is difficult to view that the lower court’s determination of credibility is beyond the reasonable doubt of judges.

In order for the appellate court to recognize that A’s statement is reliable, the appellate court’s decision rejecting the credibility of the statement should be acceptable and sufficient and acceptable.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4994, Nov. 24, 2006). The evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone does not appear in such a situation.

The judgment of the court below that rejected the credibility of the statement under the principle of court-oriented trial and the principle of direct trial cannot be respected.

Among the remainder of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it is difficult to recognize the admissibility of evidence as hearsay evidence because the F testimony was made from A, and as long as it is rejected the credibility of A’s statement, it is difficult to recognize this part of credibility.

It is difficult to view the record of interview conversation as having directly recognized that the defendant had provided perjury.

The defendant's case constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime.