2. On September 7, 2006, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of KRW 2.5 million by the Seoul Southern District Court for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) and a fine of KRW 1.5 million by the same court on October 21, 2014.

On December 2, 2014, at around 23:11, 2014, the Defendant driven C cargo vehicle under the influence of alcohol content of 0.170% from a place where the phone number of Mapo-gu Seoul Mapo-gu is unknown to the entrance of the new apartment located in 433-3, Mapo-gu, Seoul, to the front entrance of the sex apartment.

3. Determination

A. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the ground that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was difficult to recognize the facts charged by taking into account the following legal principles and records and arguments.

The burden of proof for the facts constituting an offense prosecuted in a criminal trial is to be borne by a public prosecutor, and the conviction is to be based on the evidence of probative value, which makes the judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, the defendant is suspected of guilty.

Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Do6110 Decided February 11, 2003, etc.). A protocol in which an investigative agency recorded a statement of the person making the original statement has a limitation that the investigative agency has no choice but to have probative value in essence, compared to the statement of the person making the original statement. In particular, in a case where the person making the original statement was unable to attend the court and cross-examine the court, the protocol in which the statement is written can serve as the basis for a judge’s right conviction.