The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In full view of the evidence presented by the prosecutor in the gist of the grounds for appeal, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

2. Determination

A. In light of the circumstances stated in its holding, the lower court determined that the evidence alone submitted by the prosecutor alone was insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant had an intentional act to facilitate the commission of the crime while recognizing the crime of scaming fraud, and that there was no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

B. The prosecutor bears the burden of proving the facts charged in a criminal trial for the judgment of the court for the trial. The conviction should be based on the evidence with probative value sufficient for the judge to have a reasonable doubt that the facts charged are true. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is a suspicion of guilt against the defendant, it shall be determined in the interest of the defendant even if there is no such evidence.

(see, i.e., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do9633, Nov. 11, 2010). In addition, in a case where the appellate court intends to conduct a re-evaluation of the first instance court’s judgment after an ex post facto determination in the absence of any objective and objective grounds that may affect the formation of a conviction during the said trial process, there is a reasonable ground to deem that the first instance court’s determination was clearly erroneous or that the argument leading to the fact-finding is considerably unreasonable as it is in violation of logical and empirical rules.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031, Mar. 22, 2017). In the instant case where there is no new reason to affect the formation of conviction in the trial court, a thorough comparison of the reasoning of the lower judgment with the records, the lower court’s determination of evidence is erroneous, or is up to the fact-finding.