The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal E, as stated in the facts charged from an investigative agency to the original trial, was deceiving E

The statements of E are made specifically and consistently, and H are made in compliance with the statements of E, so the statements of E are credibility.

On the other hand, since the defendant has failed to consistently make a statement about the process during which he received KRW 2 million from E, it is difficult to have it reliable, and I and J’s statement that seem to conform to the defendant’s legal counsel is difficult in light of the circumstances in which the defendant did not make any statement about I and J at the investigative agency, and it is difficult for the court below to have made a request for witness.

Therefore, in full view of the statements of E and H, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant, despite the finding of the facts charged, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court determined that the Defendant deceptioned E, as stated in the facts charged in the instant case, to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt solely based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor.

It is difficult to recognize

The judgment of innocence was pronounced.

(1) E is expected to enable a criminal defendant to supply water to F on his/her face to the criminal investigation agency for a period of KRW 20 million.

In doing so, the said person stated that he/she paid KRW 20 million. However, he/she did not make a specific statement on what form of the project to be promoted and what the nature of KRW 20 million is, etc.

② H appeared as a witness in this court and stated to the effect that “the Defendant acquired 20 million won from E, such as the facts charged.”

In this regard, H seems to have a considerable doubt about the defendant due to the dispute with the defendant, and it was revealed that it was up to now in the process of testimony.

E is separate from this.