1. As to the assertion of mistake of facts against the rules of evidence, the finding of guilt in a criminal trial shall be based on evidence with probative value sufficient to cause the judge to have a reasonable doubt that the facts charged are true, and if there is no evidence to form such a conviction, the defendant is suspected to be guilty.

Even though it is inevitable to judge the defendant's interest as a direct evidence, it is not necessarily required to be formed by direct evidence, but it is formed by indirect evidence as long as it does not violate the rules of experience and logic. Even if indirect evidence does not have full probative value as to the crime individually, if it is deemed that there is a comprehensive probative value as a whole, if it is deemed that there is a comprehensive probative value as a whole, under mutual relation, if it is deemed that there is no independent evidence.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Do4392 Decided November 27, 2001, etc.). The term “reasonable doubt” refers to a reasonable doubt as to the probability of facts that are not compatible with the facts requiring proof based on logical and empirical rules, not including any doubt and correspondence, and refers to a reasonable doubt as to the probability of facts that are inconsistent with the facts requiring proof based on logical and empirical rules. Thus, the doubt based on conceptual or abstract possibilities cannot be deemed to be included in a reasonable doubt.

(대법원 2004. 6. 25. 선고 2004도2221 판결, 대법원 2011. 1. 27. 선고 2010도12728 판결 등 참조). 원심은, 그 채택 증거를 종합하여 그 판시와 같은 사실을 인정한 다음, 피해자 사체에 대한 검안 및 부검과정에서 발견된 목 부위의 피부까짐, 지두흔(指頭痕)과 유사한 오른 턱뼈각 주변의 멍과 그 바로 밑 물렁조직층의 출혈, 오른 목빗근 근육 속 출혈, 방패연골 왼 위뿔 주변 물렁조직의 국소출혈 등은 타인에 의한...