Judgment

In the relevant legal principles, the recognition of facts constituting an offense ought to be based on strict evidence with probative value that leads a judge to have such a degree that is not likely to have a reasonable doubt. Therefore, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof does not sufficiently reach the extent that such conviction would lead to such conviction, even if there are suspicions of guilt, such as inconsistency with the defendant’s assertion or defense or uncomfortable dismissal, it should be determined in the interests of the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do1487, Apr. 28, 2011). In addition, in light of the fact that one criminal appellate court has the character as a post-trial trial even after the fact that it has the nature as a follow-up trial and the spirit of substantial direct deliberation as prescribed in the Criminal Procedure Act, it is difficult for the first instance court to exclude a reasonable doubt after undergoing the examination of evidence, etc.

In a case where a not-guilty verdict is rendered on the facts charged, if it does not reach the extent that it can sufficiently resolve the reasonable doubt raised by the first instance trial even if the probability or doubt about some opposing facts may be raised as a result of the appellate trial’s examination, there is an error of mistake in the determination of facts in the first instance judgment, which lacks proof of crime solely

Clearly concluding that the facts charged cannot be found guilty (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do11428, Feb. 18, 2016). In full view of the circumstances as stated in its reasoning, the lower court’s determination of the instant case is difficult to recognize that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was proven as being beyond a reasonable doubt.