Judgment

The burden of proof for the facts constituting an offense prosecuted in the relevant legal doctrine criminal trial is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction is to be based on the evidence of probative value, which makes the judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, even if there is a suspicion of guilt against the defendant, it shall be determined with the benefit of the defendant.

(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the lower court’s determination on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court is clearly erroneous, or the lower court’s determination on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court is clearly erroneous, in light of the substance of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined in the first instance court, or there are exceptional cases where it is deemed that maintaining the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court is considerably unreasonable, in full view of the results of the first instance court’s examination and the results of additional evidence examination conducted until the closing of argument in the appellate court, the lower court should not reverse the first instance judgment on the ground that the first instance judgment on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance differs from the appellate court’s determination.

(See Supreme Court Decisions 91Do1672 delivered on October 22, 1991, 94Do1545 delivered on November 25, 1994, 96Do2461 delivered on December 6, 196, 205, and 2005Do130 delivered on May 26, 2005, etc.). In particular, in cases of evidence supporting facts charged, the first instance court, who directly observed the figures and attitudes of the witnesses in the process of examination of witnesses, can recognize the credibility of the witness’s statement.