2. Determination

A. The conviction in a criminal trial shall be based on evidence with probative value, which can lead a judge to have a conviction against the facts charged beyond a reasonable doubt, and if there is no such proof, the conviction cannot be judged even if there is a suspicion of guilt against the defendant (see Supreme Court Decisions 2001Do2823, Aug. 21, 2001; 2005Do8675, Mar. 9, 2006, etc.). In addition, in light of the fact that the appellate court has the character as a follow-up trial despite its appearance and the fact that the appellate court has the character as a follow-up trial in light of the spirit of substantial direct trial as prescribed in the Criminal Procedure Act, there is insufficient evidence that the first instance court is insufficient to exclude a reasonable doubt after undergoing the examination of evidence such as a witness.

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

Finally, the facts charged should not be found guilty (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do11428, Feb. 18, 2016). (b) In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the following circumstances, which were revealed by the lower court and recognized by the record, are the following circumstances, namely, the victim E-fact confirmation (Evidence No. 45 pages) submitted to an investigative agency, which is the last day of July 10 to 15.