2. In a judgment of conviction in a criminal trial, the conviction should be based on evidence of probative value, which makes it possible for a judge to have the truth that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt, and if there is no such proof, the conviction cannot be made even if there is a suspicion of guilt against the defendant.

In addition, in light of the fact that the criminal appellate court has the nature as a post-examination even after the fact that it has the nature of the post-examination and the spirit of the de facto direct deliberation as provided in the Criminal Procedure Act, there is insufficient evidence to exclude a reasonable doubt after the first instance court has gone through the examination of evidence.

In a case where a not-guilty verdict is rendered on the facts charged, if it does not reach the extent that it can sufficiently resolve the reasonable doubt raised by the first instance trial even if the probability or doubt about some opposing facts may be raised as a result of the appellate trial’s examination, there is an error of mistake in the determination of facts in the first instance judgment, which lacks proof of crime solely

Clearly concluding that the facts charged are not guilty (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do8610, Apr. 15, 2016). In addition, in a criminal case, the injury diagnosis report may serve as a valuable evidence to prove the facts constituting the crime of the defendant, along with the victim’s statement.

However, it can be recognized that the existence of the injury fact and the relation with the person should also be proved to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. Therefore, when there are circumstances to suspect objectivity and credibility of the injury diagnosis, the probative value should be judged.