2. In a judgment of conviction in a criminal trial, the conviction should be based on evidence of probative value, which makes it possible for a judge to have the truth that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt, and if there is no such proof, the conviction cannot be made even if there is a suspicion of guilt against the defendant.

In addition, in a case where the first instance court rendered a not guilty verdict of the facts charged on the ground that there is insufficient evidence to exclude reasonable doubt after undergoing the examination of evidence, such as witness examination, etc., in view of the fact that the criminal appellate court has the nature as a post-examination even though it is still a part of the trial and the spirit of substantial direct examination as prescribed in the Criminal Procedure Act, it may be probable or doubtful as to the facts partially opposed

Even if it does not reach the extent of sufficiently resolving the reasonable doubt caused by the first instance trial, such circumstance alone alone alone does not readily conclude that the lack of proof of a crime was erroneous in the judgment of the first instance court, and thus, cannot be found guilty of the facts charged (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do8610, Apr. 15, 2016). For the reasons indicated in its reasoning, the lower court, based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, does not sufficiently prove that the Defendant made a false statement contrary to memory as stated in the instant facts charged, to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt.