2. Determination

A. In a criminal trial, the conviction of a person guilty should be based on evidence of probative value, which makes it possible for a judge to have the truth that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt, and if there is no evidence to form such a conviction, the defendant is suspected of guilty even if there is no evidence to establish such a degree.

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

However, such a conviction must not necessarily be formed by direct evidence, but it can be formed by indirect evidence unless it violates the rules of experience and logic. Even if indirect evidence does not have a complete probative value as to a crime individually, if it is deemed that there is a comprehensive probative value as to the whole evidence, and if it is deemed that there is a comprehensive probative value as to the whole evidence, it can be acknowledged as criminal facts.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do4172, Jun. 27, 2013). (B)

As to this case, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., ① the defendant was passing through the place where the crime was committed since it was long time from the time of the crime of this case, and sees the words that the police stop. At that time, the defendant was holding a cash equivalent to one day and a considerable amount of money; ② As a result of the appraisal by the National Science Investigation Agency of Korea, the degree of damage to the chief door correction device of damaged vehicles was presumed to have been generated by the victim's vehicle was in possession of the defendant, or by the object with a similar form and size; ③ the defendant escaped as above, and ④ the above day was put in a turd field.