Nevertheless, the lower court which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case has erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. In a criminal trial, the conviction of guilt should be based on evidence with probative value, which could lead a judge to feel true that the facts charged are not likely to have a reasonable doubt. Unless such proof is given, the conviction of the defendant cannot be determined 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 degree of sufficiently resolving the reasonable suspicion caused by the first instance trial, such circumstance alone alone does not lead to finding that there was an error of misconception of facts in the judgment of the first instance court that lack of proof of crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do8610, Apr. 15, 2016). B.

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the instant facts charged on the ground that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was insufficient to recognize that the Defendant was aware that only the Defendant had the right to sell the scrap metal of D.

The records of each of the circumstances stated by the court below in detail.