The criminal defendant's statement in the trial court and the comprehensive evidence of its reinforcement;

In a case where the facts constituting an offense can be acknowledged by integrating the testimony of the defendant and the witness who has the admissibility of evidence in the court, the reason for rejection shall be explained.

Articles 307 and 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Prosecutor

Seoul High Court of the second instance, the Seoul High Court of the Daejeon District Court;

The original judgment shall be destroyed.

This case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the defendant's non-indicted 1 and the defendant's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 8's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 8's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 3's non-indicted 8's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 4's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 8's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 8's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 5's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 3's non-indicted 1's non-indicted

According to the reasoning of the original judgment in the appellate court, on August 1, 4284, the defendant was found not guilty on the ground that there was insufficient evidence as to the fact that the defendant made two copies of the week, i.e., the defendant's dwelling at the defendant's resident's dwelling, 7 7 7 7 5 7 7 5 7 5 00 00 00 00 00 05 00 00 00 05 000. However, if the record of this case was prepared by the clerk of the tax official without the police officer on the charge of violation of the Liquor Tax Act as the defendant's statement among the last day of the investigation of the case as to non-indicted 2's suspicion of violation of the Liquor Tax Act by the clerk of the tax

Of course, since Non-Indicted 3's testimony that he was well-known between the husband and wife, it was found that his wife was well-known due to the Defendant's official disturbance in the trial records of the court below, and the tax office's investigation was made, and it could be acknowledged that the facts of this case was made in full view of the records that the wife and the principal made a statement to the tax office. However, the court below did not err in the misunderstanding of evidence because the court below stated that there was no counter-proof evidence in this case, and that there was no evidence, and that there was no evidence to prove that there was no evidence to prove it, and the appeal is without merit, and the judgment of the court below is so decided as per Disposition under Article 447 and Article 448-2 of the former Criminal Procedure Act.

Justices Kim Byung-ro (Presiding Justice) Kim Jong-sung (Presiding Justice)