2. Determination

A. The Defendant consistently denies the facts charged from an investigative agency to this court. As such, the prosecutor bears the burden of proving the facts charged in a criminal trial, and the conviction should be based on the evidence with probative value sufficient to cause a judge to have a reasonable doubt that the facts charged are true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, there is no doubt of guilt against the Defendant even if there is no such evidence.

Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1151, Jul. 22, 2010). (B)

The evidence concerning the facts charged in this case includes statements made by the victim E in the investigative agency and this court, CCTV video and investigation report (in the location of all mobile phoness), but in light of the following circumstances, the above evidence alone is insufficient to recognize that the defendant stolen a mobile phone of the victim as stated in the facts charged, without any reasonable doubt.

① It is insufficient to recognize that CCTV screen pictures of the instant case brought the cell phone that the Defendant left on the separate collection table so far as the CCTV screen pictures of the instant case are well well-known and inflammable.

The results of the appraisal by the National Institute of Scientific Investigation are difficult to determine whether or not the defendant takes a material object in the above video. ② The victim E was a large number of people in the form that the defendant took a hand on the separate collection test or brings a cell phone in addition to the defendant in this court.

After having kept a cell phone, the first person was the defendant, and the other person was the defendant.