However, in light of the fact that the Defendant shared his identification card, credit card, and bank account with B while living together with B, and that B allowed him to open a mobile phone in the name of the Defendant, the Defendant should be deemed to have been aware that the Defendant was aware that he would have allowed the above opening even at the time of opening the cell phone recorded in the above complaint. Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the Defendant was not guilty.

2. Determination

A. In the relevant legal doctrine, the recognition of facts constituting an offense ought to be based on strict evidence of probative value, which makes a judge not to have any reasonable doubt. Therefore, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof does not reach the extent that the prosecutor is not able to have a sufficient conviction, it should be determined in the interests of the defendant even if there are circumstances, such as the defendant’s assertion or suspicion of guilt due to contradictory or uncomfortable dismissal.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2017Do1549 Decided May 30, 2017). B.

The lower court determined that the Defendant already opened two cell phoness in the name of the Defendant at the request of B and consented again to an additional opening. However, in light of the circumstances that the Defendant was aware of the fact that the said three cell phone numbers were either certain numbers or they were not well aware of the number, and that only three cellular phone numbers were opened in the name of the Defendant only when they were opened at around December 2014 when living together with B was finished with the Defendant, the Defendant consented to the opening of the said cell phone.