The conviction in a criminal trial on the grounds for appeal ought to be based on evidence with probative value, which can lead a judge to have a conviction as to the authenticity of the facts charged beyond a reasonable doubt, and if there is no such proof, even if there is no doubt as to the defendant’s guilt, the conviction cannot be rendered (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do8675, Mar. 9, 2006). In addition, in light of the fact that the appellate trial has the character as an ex post facto trial even though it is in the face of the trial and the spirit of substantial direct trial as prescribed in the Criminal Procedure Act, there is insufficient proof to exclude a reasonable doubt after the first instance court goes through the examination of evidence such as a witness.

In a case where a not-guilty verdict is rendered on the facts charged, if it does not reach the extent that it can sufficiently resolve the reasonable doubt raised by the first instance trial even if the probability or doubt about some opposing facts may be raised as a result of the appellate trial’s examination, there is an error of mistake in the determination of facts in the first instance judgment, which lacks proof of crime solely

Clearly concluding that the facts charged are not guilty (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do8610, Apr. 15, 2016). After undergoing the examination of evidence, such as the examination of witnesses E and F, the lower court, based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

It is difficult to see

The judgment of the court below is just and acceptable when comparing the reasoning of the judgment below with the evidence adopted by the court below.