2. In a criminal trial for determination, the burden of proving the facts constituting an offense prosecuted is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction of guilt ought to be based on strict evidence of probative value, which makes the judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, even if there is suspicion of guilt against the defendant, it is inevitable to determine it with the benefit of the defendant.

In this case, according to the witness F's legal statement and the statement of the occurrence of the case and the confirmation report, the defendant, even if argued by the defendant, arrived at the vicinity of the house by using the substitute driving as the defendant's assertion.

Even if there is a doubt that the vehicle is not directly driven 50 meters in order to park in front of the house, but there is no room for reasonable deliberation as to whether the defendant was driving at the time, but the G which was reported as a drinking driver with the defendant's trial expense at the time, or the H which the defendant designated as an acting driver was not present and made a statement, each of the above evidence alone cannot be viewed as having been admitted without any doubt as to whether the defendant was driving at the time, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, is acquitted by the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure