2. In a criminal trial, the recognition of facts constituting a crime ought to be based on strict evidence with probative value, which makes a judge not to have any reasonable doubt. Thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof does not reach the extent that the aforementioned convictions, even if there are suspicions of guilt, such as inconsistency with the Defendant’s assertion or defense or uncomfortable dismissal, the determination ought to be made in the interests of the Defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do231, Jun. 28, 2012). In light of such legal principles, each of the statements made in D, E’s investigation agency, and the court of the relevant case, which correspond to the facts charged in the instant case, have been duly admitted and duly adopted by the lower court. In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly examined by the lower court, there is credibility to the extent that a reasonable doubt is excluded.

It is difficult to see that the remaining evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize the facts charged in the instant case, and there is no other obvious evidence to prove the guilty of the facts charged in the instant case.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case is just, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the facts as pointed out by the prosecutor and affecting the conclusion

Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.

① The Defendant shotly shot the appearance of E accompanied with D at an investigative agency, and memoryed the year of birth indicated in the identification card presented by them for 192, when he/she was born, in the year of birth indicated in the identification card.

The year of the birth was stated, and E shall be kept in D's main box.