All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the court below found the Defendants guilty of all of the crimes listed in the facts charged of this case, but the court below acquitted the Defendants due to erroneous determination of facts.

2. Determination

A. In a case where the issue is whether to receive or receive money is the issue, the Defendant’s statement that was designated as the recipient of the money denies the receipt of the money, and there is no objective evidence such as financial data to support this, the admissibility of evidence is required, and there is credibility excluding a reasonable doubt. In determining credibility, it is also necessary to also examine whether there is a relationship between the credibility of the statement itself as well as its own rationality, objective reasonableness, consistency before and after the statement, and its human beings, in particular, if there is a suspicion of a crime committed against him, and there is a possibility that the investigation may be initiated, or if there is a possibility that the evidence of the statement might be denied, and if there is a possibility that the statement might be conducted in the course of an investigation, there is a possibility that the evidence of the statement would affect the statement to escape from the imminent place.

(See Supreme Court Decision 200Do5701 delivered on June 11, 2002, etc.). Furthermore, in a case where the credibility of a statement of a person who asserts to have provided money through several times is denied as the result of the examination in accordance with the above criteria revealed objective circumstances, etc. that make it difficult to believe the part concerning the provision of money, the credibility of the statement that the person provided money through several times is considerably weak, even though the remaining part of the statement is provided.