2. In a judgment in a criminal trial, criminal facts must be found based on strict evidence of probative value, which makes a judge not to have any reasonable doubt. Thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof fails to fully reach the extent that the defendant’s assertion or defense is inconsistent or unreasonable, it should be determined in the interests of the defendant even if there is suspicion of guilt, such as where the defendant’s assertion or defense is inconsistent or unreasonable.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do14487, Apr. 28, 2011). The evidence directly proving the facts charged of the instant case is that the F statement from the Defendant that the Defendant appeared to the instant statement.

However, in addition to the circumstances properly explained by the court below, the following circumstances, i.e., (i) the F stated at the court that no person was at all involved in the council of occupants' representatives, but the fact that F was present at the council of occupants' representatives on May 30, 2014 was confirmed through the list of the participants present at the council of occupants' representatives; (ii) in the second statement at the court below, F presented the above list of participants and changed its statement that he was present at the council of occupants' representatives on one occasion; (iii) even if the above list was reported, it was not clear that he was present at the council of occupants' representatives; and (iv) the F did not have contact with D and personal friendly relations with D in the list of participants; and (iii) the text message sent by D as the chairperson of the council of occupants' representatives at the second statement at the court below, but it was confirmed that F and D currency were made several times due to F and D currency contents, it is difficult for F to believe the facts charged in this case.