The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In a case where the issue of whether to accept money or valuables was given or not as to the ground of appeal No. 1, the Defendant’s statement that was identified as the recipient of money or valuables denies the receipt of money or, in the absence of objective evidence, such as financial data to support the receipt, must have credibility to exclude a reasonable doubt, as well as the admissibility of evidence.

In such cases, whether the content of the statement itself is reasonable, objective reasonableness, consistency before and after the statement, and its human beings, and in particular, whether there is credibility in the statement, considering whether there is a suspicion of a crime committed against him/her and there is a possibility that an investigation may be initiated on the charge of the crime or if the investigation is being conducted on the charge of the crime, efforts to escape from the place where he/she is faced may affect the statement.

(See Supreme Court Decisions 2005Do4202 Decided February 14, 2008; 2008Do8137 Decided January 15, 2009, etc.). Meanwhile, the establishment of criminal facts ought to be proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt (Article 307(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act). However, the selection of evidence and the probative value of evidence based on the premise of fact-finding belong to the free judgment of the fact-finding court.

(Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act). The court below held that this part of the facts charged is guilty on the grounds of its stated reasoning that the N’s statement that provided the bribe may be trusted with respect to the facts charged after the acceptance of the bribe, and rejected the Defendant’s assertion of erroneous determination of facts or misapprehension of legal principles.

The allegation in this part of the grounds of appeal is merely an error of the judgment of the court below on the selection and probative value of evidence belonging to the free judgment of the fact-finding court, as the purport of disputing such fact-finding by the

b) the Commission;