A. Although the Defendant did not have abused and rape Defendant B with a sculptor, B appeared as a witness in the 2017 High Court and testified that “the Defendant assaulted B with a sculptor, and raped” at the trial of 2017 High Court and the Criminal Act supporting the racing of Daegu District Court.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and erroneous.

On the other hand, the punishment sentenced by the court below (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The above sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. 1) The fact that a criminal judgment already became final and conclusive on the same factual basis is valuable evidence, and thus, it cannot be recognized that the facts are inconsistent with the fact-finding unless there are special circumstances where it is deemed difficult to adopt a criminal judgment. Furthermore, although the probative value of evidence is left to the discretion of a judge, it should be consistent with logical and empirical rules, and the degree of the formation of a conviction to be found guilty in a criminal trial should be the extent that there is no reasonable doubt, but it is not required to the extent that all possible doubts are excluded, and the rejection by causing a suspicion without any reasonable evidence recognized as having probative value is not allowed beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence. The term "reasonable doubt" in this context is based on logical and empirical rule as to the probability of a fact that cannot be compatible with the required fact-finding, and is based on this sexual prosecution that is grasped in relation to the fact-finding, and thus, it cannot be said that there is no reasonable doubt based on the conceptual or abstract possibility of the fact-finding (see Supreme Court).