All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the reasons for the prosecutor’s appeal, in a criminal trial, evidence with probative value that leads the judge to have a conviction that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt should be based on the evidence that has probative value to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt, and if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt as to the defendant’s guilt, it should be determined as the benefit of the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do5389, Jun. 12, 2008). Furthermore, the selection of evidence and probative value of evidence conducted on the premise of fact-finding belong to the free judgment of the fact-finding court (Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act). Based on its reasoning, the lower court upheld the first instance judgment that acquitted the Defendant on the ground that there is no proof of a violation of judicial law regarding the part of KRW 10 million, remitted on Oct. 26, 2010 among the instant facts charged, and twenty million won transferred on March 8, 2012.

The allegation in the grounds of appeal is nothing more than the purport of disputing the preparation of evidence and fact-finding, which is the exclusive authority to deliberate on facts, and it cannot be deemed a legitimate ground of appeal. While examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules

2. As to the grounds for appeal by the defendant

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, the lower court, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, found the Defendant guilty of the violation of the law of defense (excluding the aforementioned acquittal portion) among the facts charged in the instant case.

The ground of appeal on this part is that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or finding facts on the premise of facts different from the facts acknowledged by the court

Appellants: (a) the reasoning of the lower court’s appeal cannot be deemed a legitimate ground for appeal solely based on the purport of disputing the preparation of evidence and fact-finding; and (b) the evidence duly adopted by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning of the lower judgment.