2. In a criminal trial, the burden of proof for the facts constituting an offense prosecuted is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction of guilt is to be based on the 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 a suspicion of guilt against the defendant, it is inevitable to determine it with the benefit of the defendant.

(1) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the lower court’s reasoning for innocence and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court based on the aforementioned legal doctrine, and the lower court’s detailed explanation of the reasoning is difficult to believe that the statements made by D and F at each court or the police are consistent with the facts charged in the instant case, and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize the facts charged in the instant case, and there is no other evidence to prove this, the lower court’s determination that the Defendant was innocent is just and acceptable, and since there was no new evidence to prove the facts charged in the instant case at the trial, there was no other evidence to prove the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine or by misapprehending the legal doctrine due to the violation of the rules of evidence by the prosecutor.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit.