A. The judgment of the court below that convicted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts, even though it is difficult to view that the victim of this case in misunderstanding of facts did not have designated the Defendant as the perpetrator, and the indirect evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone does not have any reasonable doubt that the Defendant injured the victim.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The degree of formation of a conviction in a criminal trial must be such that there is no reasonable doubt, but to the extent that it is not required to exclude all possible doubts, and rejection by causing a suspicion that has probative value without reasonable grounds is beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence.

The term “reasonable doubt” refers to a reasonable doubt based on logical and empirical rules as to the probability of a fact that is not compatible with the facts requiring proof, rather than all questions and correspondences, and the suspicion based on conceptual or abstract possibilities cannot be deemed to be included in a reasonable doubt.

(see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do12728, Jan. 27, 2011). Furthermore, such a conviction is not necessarily required to be formed by direct evidence, and is formed by indirect evidence insofar as it does not violate the empirical and logical rules, and even if indirect evidence does not have a complete probative value as to a crime individually, if it is deemed that there is a comprehensive probative value as to the whole evidence, if it is deemed that there is a comprehensive probative value as to the whole evidence solely based on mutual relation, even if indirect evidence does not have a complete probative value as to the crime, the crime

Supreme Court Decision 2001Do4392 Delivered on November 27, 2001