2. Determination

A. In a criminal trial, the establishment of a criminal fact 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 sufficiently reach the extent that such conviction would lead to such conviction, even if there is a doubt of guilt, such as the defendant’s assertion or defense contradictory or uncomfortable dismissal, it should be determined in the interests of the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do1487, Apr. 28, 201). (b) Examining the instant case in accordance with such legal doctrine, the mere evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone proves that the instant facts charged was beyond a reasonable doubt.

It is difficult to see it.

(1) While the victim’s statements in this court and in the investigative agency are arranged as a proposal of F, which is the place where the defendant and the sick room together use the defendant’s things, the defendant was able to dance and commits an indecent act in a manner consistent with himself/herself while he/she was seated on his/her own scam, and the victim scam and bucked.

On March 13, 2015, the crime of this case (referring to the act recorded in the facts charged for convenience "the crime of this case") suggested that the victim at the time when the defendant was hospitalized by the defendant was only the first appearance of the defendant in the F's ward and that F did not have awareness of the defendant, but it is difficult to easily understand that the defendant's private items were included in the sick room.

In addition, according to the statement of one victim, F is a person who is divorced by the defendant as the horse.