2. The finding of guilt in a false criminal trial ought to be based on evidence of probative value, which leads a judge to have a conviction that is sufficient to have a reasonable doubt that the facts charged are true. Thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof fails to sufficiently reach such a degree as to have such conviction, the determination ought to be based on the defendant’s benefit even if there is a suspicion of guilt.

(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the lower court determined that the Defendant committed a theft of the victim’s property as indicated in the facts charged, even if it was based on CCTV images that were submitted by the Defendant with the screen pictures taken by the Defendant on the face of the thief, in light of the foregoing legal doctrine. In so doing, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant stolen the victim’s property as indicated in the facts charged. In addition, even if all of the remaining evidence submitted by the Prosecutor were presented by the Prosecutor, it is difficult to view that the facts charged in the instant case was proven without reasonable doubt.

3. In conclusion, since the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, the defendant is acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the judgment of innocence in this case under the proviso of Article 58(2) of the Criminal