The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal: Fact-misunderstanding and misunderstanding of legal principles

A. In light of the consistent purport of the investigation into the instant case’s receipt of KRW 400 million in early April 2007, the investigation into the police officer began around August 2013, and there is a somewhat irregular nature in G and M’s statements, and the basic purport of G and M’s delivery of KRW 400 million to the Defendant is consistent, each statement that corresponds to the facts charged in G and M is credibility, and the investigation into the instant case was conducted regardless of G’s embezzlement of funds, and the loans to the F of the D Savings Bank correspond to preferential treatment, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. On February 22, 2010, G’s statement that corresponds to this part of the facts charged is reliable in light of the content of the statement and the circumstances leading up to the statement, the relevant financial transaction station complies with this, and the Defendant received part of the amount from G at the time of the first investigation by the investigative agency.

In full view of the facts determined by the court below, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

2. Determination [Abstract] In light of the law of the burden of proof of criminal burden, in particular, in a case where the issue is whether money or valuables are given or received, the legal doctrine on strict requirements to acknowledge guilt solely on the statement of a person who provided money or valuables where there is no objective evidence, such as financial data to support the receipt of money or valuables (Supreme Court Decision 2015Do11428 Decided February 18, 2016), when excluding some evidence that cannot be admitted as hearsay evidence and it is difficult to recognize its probative value as evidence, the statement of the money or valuables provider falls under the only evidence of guilt, and there is no other objective evidence.