[2] The burden of proving the facts charged in a criminal trial (=the prosecutor) and the probative value of evidence to acknowledge guilty

[3] The case affirming the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendants of the facts charged of bodily injury on the grounds that the credibility of each confession statement made by the prosecutor's office is doubtful in light of various circumstances

[2] In a criminal trial, the prosecutor bears the burden of proving the criminal facts prosecuted, and the conviction should be based on the evidence of probative value, which makes the judge feel true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, even if there is a doubt as to the defendant's guilt, it shall be determined with the benefit of the defendant.

[3] The case affirming the judgment below which acquitted the Defendants of the charges of death resulting from bodily injury on the ground that the credibility of each confession statement made by the prosecution by the Defendants is doubtful in light of various circumstances, such as where the Defendants consistently denied the crimes after the trial of the first instance, the other Defendants are aware that they had already led to the confession of crimes in the course of investigation, or the prosecutor seems to have made a confession by knowing that they would have been prior to the confession

The credibility of a confession made by the public prosecutor cannot be said to be doubtful solely on the grounds that the confession made by the defendant is different from the legal statement or that it is excessively unfavorable to the defendant. In determining the credibility of a confession, the credibility of the confession shall be determined in consideration of the following: (a) whether the contents of the confession statement itself have objectively rationality; (b) the motive or reason behind the confession; (c) what is the reason why the confession was made; and (d) whether there is any conflict with or conflict with the confession among the circumstantial evidence other than the confession; and (e) whether there was any circumstance to raise reasonable doubts in the grounds stipulated in Article 309 of the Criminal Procedure Act or in the motive or process of the confession (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Do4091, Sept. 28, 2001; 2008Do1994, Jun. 26, 2008).

Furthermore, in a criminal trial, the burden of proof for the facts constituting an offense prosecuted is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction is to 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 doubt for guilt against the defendant, the interest of the defendant should be judged (see Supreme Court Decisions 2002Do5662, Dec. 24, 2002; 2006Do1713, May 26, 2006, etc.).

According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court consistently denied the Defendants’ confession while making a confession in the first instance court’s trial, but consistently denied the crimes after the first instance court’s trial; the Defendants still ageed and did not get any assistance from their family members or guardians; the Defendants believed that other Defendants had already led to the confession during the investigation process, or that the Defendants could have been led to the confession of the crimes; the Defendants could have been led to the confession; the victim was the victim; there was an interview at the entrance parking lot near the river basin; and thereafter, there was an assault from the victim; the Defendants’ behavior and the victim were committed to the Suwon High School at the front and the second door; how there was any concern about the arrival of the Defendant’s confession statement in relation to the situation after arrival; and there was insufficient evidence to prove that there was any inconsistency or inconsistency with each other; and that there was no other evidence to prove the credibility of the victim’s fingerprints or any other part of the facts charged at the time of the confession in light of various circumstances.

In light of the above legal principles and records, such judgment of the court below is just, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or lack of reasoning as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Young-ran (Presiding Justice)