“Abandoning down the death,” citing the kitchen knife (32 cm in length, 18 cm in length), which is a dangerous thing in the kitchen where he or she was living in the kitchen, on the ground that he or she said, and she read “bandoning down the death,” on the left part of the victim.

Accordingly, the defendant carried dangerous objects and threatened the victim.

2. Determination

A. The burden of proof for the criminal facts prosecuted in a criminal trial is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction shall be based on the evidence of probative value, which makes the judge sure that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is a suspicion of guilt against the defendant, the interest of the defendant is inevitable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do5301, Oct. 11, 2012). Therefore, it is not recognized that the facts charged are proven without reasonable doubt solely on the evidence submitted by the public prosecutor.

B. Among the statements in E investigation agencies and in this court, the part stating that the defendant was threatened by intimidation, such as the statement in the facts charged above, constitutes a protocol in which the defendant made a re-professional statement or re-professional statement, and as there is no consent to it as evidence, it cannot be used as evidence of guilt (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do5948, May 24, 2012).

D’s investigative agency and this court’s statement to the effect that the Defendant threatened the Defendant with a knife as stated in the facts charged are difficult to believe in light of the following facts acknowledged by the record.

(1) D was assaulted by the Defendant on the day following the facts charged.