The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant, without notifying the F of the fact that it is impossible to report general restaurant business at the instant coffee shop, and the fact that he controlled the business report at the Gu office, he did not notify the aforementioned important information to avoid the crackdown on the business of the Gu office, and even after being notified of the fact, he was clearly recognized that the Defendant was issued KRW 13 million by the victim, but the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact and thereby acquitted the Defendant.

2. In light of the fact that the Criminal Appellate Trial has the nature as an ex post facto trial and the fact that the Criminal Appellate Trial has the same nature as a material direct examination under the Criminal Procedure Act, in a case where the first instance court rendered a not guilty verdict on the facts charged on the ground that there is insufficient evidence to exclude a reasonable doubt after undergoing the examination of evidence, such as a witness examination, if it does not reach the extent to sufficiently resolve the reasonable doubt raised by the first instance court as a result of the appellate trial’s examination, such circumstance alone does not lead to an erroneous determination of facts in the first instance judgment that lack of proof of crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do14516, Apr. 28, 2016). The lower court’s determination that the circumstances presented in detail by the lower court and evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, and the fact that the Defendant paid 12.5 million won to F in receipt of the instant coffee, and the circumstance recognized by the victim at the time of taking over the Defendant from F and the circumstances that were clearly different.

Furthermore, in the process of the party deliberation, it is true.