All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the victim received interest from the Defendants on the grounds of appeal.

Even though the defendants could fully recognize that the victims had obtained money by deceiving the victims while referring to the convalescent hospital and 10 billion won donation, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendants of the facts charged in this case is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and thereby affecting the conclusion of the

2. In a criminal trial, the determination of conviction should be based on evidence with probative value, which leads a judge to have the truth that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt. Unless such proof is given, the conviction cannot be determined even if there is a suspicion of guilt against the defendant.

In addition, according to the purport of the principle of substantial direct examination adopted by the Criminal Procedure Act, in order for the appellate court to reverse the first instance court’s decision denying the credibility of the statement by a witness of the first instance, it should be deemed that, in principle, the first instance court’s decision was clearly erroneous or that the first instance court’s decision is clearly erroneous or that the first instance court’s decision is remarkably unfair when comprehensively considering the results of the first

In particular, in the case of evidence supporting the facts charged, even though the first instance court, which directly observed the appearance and attitude of the witness who directly observe the witness's statement while proceeding the witness examination procedure, judged that the credibility of the witness's statement cannot be acknowledged, if the appellate court intends to determine that the credibility of the witness's statement can be acknowledged by following it, the first instance court's ruling rejecting the credibility of the witness's statement should be sufficient and acceptable.

Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4994 Decided November 24, 2006 and Supreme Court Decision 2006Do494 Decided January 24, 2013.