2. In a judgment, the burden of proof for the criminal facts prosecuted in a criminal trial is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction of guilt is to be based on evidence with probative value that makes the judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt (Article 307(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act). 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.

According to the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, the frequency of traffic accidents, including the traffic accidents charged in this case, such as receiving insurance money from the insurance company on the ground of nine times from around 2004 to around 2011, is higher than that of ordinary taxi drivers, and the driver of the other vehicle at the time does not have any son, and even though the vehicle was not a minor accident, it is recognized that the other vehicle was a minor accident to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt that the defendant intentionally caused each of the traffic accidents in this case for the purpose of acquiring insurance money, and there is no other evidence to prove that there is no other evidence to prove that the defendant was guilty of each of the facts charged in this case. Therefore, the court below did not err by misapprehending the facts.

3. As such, the prosecutor’s appeal of this case is without merit.