Judgment

A. The recognition of facts constituting an offense in a criminal trial ought to be based on strict evidence with probative value, which makes a judge not to have any reasonable doubt. As such, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof is not sufficiently enough to achieve such conviction, even if there is suspicion of guilt, such as the defendant’s assertion or defense contradictory or uncomfortable dismissal, it should be determined in the interests of the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do1487, Apr. 28, 201). In addition, in light of the fact that the appellate court has the character as a follow-up trial even after it belongs to the court, and in light of the spirit of substantial direct deliberation as prescribed in the Criminal Procedure Act, it is insufficient for the first instance court to exclude a reasonable doubt after undergoing the examination of evidence, such as the examination of 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

Justifiablely concluding that the facts charged are not guilty (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do11428, Feb. 18, 2016). B. The judgment of the instant case is based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, taking into account the circumstances as stated in its reasoning.