However, the court below recognized that the defendant committed an indecent act against the victim on the ground of the victim's statement that is not consistent in itself or inconsistent with objective evidence, such as CCTV images, etc.

2. Determination

A. The probative value of evidence is left to a judge’s free judgment, but such judgment must be consistent with logical and empirical rules, and the degree of the formation of conviction to be found guilty in a criminal trial should not be reasonable doubt. However, this does not require that all possible doubts should be excluded, and rejection of evidence that is recognized as having probative value should not exceed the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence.

In addition, the term "reasonable doubt" refers to the doubt that is reasonable for the probability of a fact that cannot be matched with the facts in accordance with logical and empirical rules, rather than all questions and correspondences. Since the circumstances favorable to the defendant should be identified in relation to the fact-finding, the doubt based on conceptual or abstract possibility shall not be deemed to be included in a reasonable doubt.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Do362 delivered on April 15, 2005, etc.). B.

The direct evidence of the crime of this case is that the victim's statement is sufficient.

Therefore, we examine whether there is no reasonable doubt about the defendant's conviction with the victim's statement in light of the reasons asserted by the defendant.

1. First, the defendant reduces the credibility of the victim's statement to the effect that the victim's act after the incident cannot be seen as the victim's act.