2. Determination

A. Criminal facts in a criminal trial should be established based on strict evidence with probative value, which leads a judge to have a reasonable doubt, and thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof fails to sufficiently reach the extent that the defendant’s assertion or defense is inconsistent or unreasonable, it should be determined in the interests of the defendant even if there is suspicion of guilt, such as where the defendant’s assertion or defense is inconsistent or unreasonable.

(Supreme Court Decision 2010Do14487 Decided April 28, 201). B.

The main evidence supporting the facts charged in the instant case is D/E’s statement in the court of the original instance and the investigative agency.

However, considering the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, it is difficult to believe that D and E’s statements are consistent with the facts charged in the instant case, and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to deem that the facts charged in the instant case was proven without reasonable doubt.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant is just, and there is no error of mistake as alleged by the prosecutor.

① In the original trial, D, “in response to the questions of the counsel and the presiding judge,” in the game of this case, is not accurately memory as to whether or not the Defendant was operating at the time of operating the game of this case. The Defendant responded to the fact that the Defendant was managing the game of this case without harming the exchange.

Since then, the prosecutor re-examines the prosecutor, “The defendant will make a statement to exchange once.”