1. Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which provides the principle of free evaluation of evidence, provides that the probative value of evidence shall be based on the free evaluation of a judge is appropriate for the discovery of substantial truth. As such, a fact-finding judge should consider the perception obtained in the trial proceedings and the evidence examined without all in mind while recognizing facts.

In addition, the judge's decision on the probative value of one evidence should be consistent with logical and empirical rules, and the degree of formation of a conviction to be found guilty in a criminal trial should be such that there is no reasonable doubt, but to the extent that it does not require any possible doubt, and there is probative value.

The rejection of evidence that is acknowledged as having no reasonable ground for doubt goes beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation, and thus cannot be permitted (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Do2221, Jun. 25, 2004; 2007Do1950, May 10, 2007). In addition, unless the defendant does not confession, the criminal intent of defraudation, which is the element of one fraud, shall be determined by taking into account objective circumstances, such as the defendant's refit before and after the crime, environment, details of the crime, possibility of the implementation of the act subject to deception, and the process of implementation (see Supreme Court Decision 95Do424, Apr. 25, 195). Furthermore, if the defendant notifies the victim of the non-performance of the victim or promises the payment of the price for the scarfing and scarfinging it, it constitutes a crime of fraud, which goes beyond the limits of traditional custom or religious act (see, 2007Do174.).

A. On November 2006, the injured party entered the I, which was at the time of Chocheon-si, followed by J as to the victim’s mental division and had been at the time of the victims’ mental division.