2. Determination

A. In full view of the circumstances stated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the Defendant Company cannot be punished by joint penal provisions, on the grounds that the team leader, who was awarded a subcontract for a part of the construction works by the Defendant Company, merely appears to have employed the instant foreigners, and there is no evidence supporting that the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor alone is difficult to deem that the Defendant Company B employed the instant foreigners.

B. The prosecutor bears the burden of proving the criminal facts prosecuted in the criminal trial for the judgment of the party trial, and the conviction should be based on the evidence with probative value sufficient to make a judge not to have any reasonable doubt that the facts charged are true. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, the suspicion of guilt is between the defendant, even if there is no such evidence.

Even if the interests of the defendant cannot be determined by the interests of the defendant

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do8675, Mar. 9, 2005). In addition, in a case where an appellate court intends to re-examine the first instance court’s decision after an ex post facto determination even though there is no new objective reason that may affect the formation of a documentary evidence during the said trial process, there is a reasonable ground to deem that the first instance court’s determination of the value of evidence was clearly erroneous or that the argument leading to the fact-finding is considerably unreasonable as it is against logical and empirical rules.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2026Do18031, Mar. 22, 2017). The formation of a conviction in a trial.