The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The victims of the misunderstanding of the fact stated that they had the same attitude in the investigative agency to point out the environmental issues at the construction site and to disappear, and that they had a good faith in light of the characteristics of the reporter's occupation, the circumstances at the time, etc.

The judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of each of the official objections on November 23, 2015 and July 8, 2016 among the facts charged in the instant case, by rejecting the credibility of such statements, was erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

B. The sentence that the court below sentenced against the defendant (one hundred months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination

A. In a criminal trial as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the recognition of facts ought to be based on strict evidence with probative value, which makes a judge not to have any reasonable doubt. Thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof does not reach the degree to have the aforementioned conviction, even if there is doubt of guilt, such as inconsistency with the defendant’s assertion or vindication, or non-competence, it should be determined in the interests of the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do231, Jun. 28, 2012). In light of such legal principles, the following facts charged in the instant case, each statement was made at the victim’s investigative agency on November 23, 2015 and July 8, 2016, each of the above statements was hard to believe as it was without reasonable proof that the victims were threatened with environmental issues that occurred at each construction site by the prosecutor, based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor.

It is difficult to see it.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the facts charged is just and it is so decided by the prosecutor.