2. The burden of proof for the criminal facts prosecuted in a criminal trial for judgment is to be borne by a public prosecutor, and the conviction is to be based on evidence with probative value that makes a judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, the suspicion of guilt is between the defendant, even if there is no such evidence.

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

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Do6110 Decided February 11, 2003, etc.). However, separate from the instant case, the Defendant acknowledged the injury of F on July 22, 2013, and the summary order against F was finalized without filing a formal trial, despite the fact that the Defendant, separately from the instant case, stated in the instant facts charged, did not change the fact that it transferred F with F at the time of entering the instant facts charged. Thus, the Defendant’s assertion of the same is examined.

First, a copy of the recording that F submitted to the police by asserting that the recording was made after recording the contents of telephone conversations with the defendant after the occurrence of the instant case, shall be considered hearsay evidence as to the defendant's statement. In addition, the F's legal statement to the effect that the recording file, etc., which served as the basis for the recording of the above recording, was not submitted as evidence, cannot be deemed to have satisfied the requirements for the formation of the authenticity under Article 313 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since it can not be deemed that the requirements for the establishment of the above recording document were met only by the F's legal statement