2. Determination

2. In a judgment, the facts constituting an offense ought to be found based on strict evidence with probative value, which makes a judge not to have any reasonable doubt. Thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof does not reach the extent that the prosecutor is not able to have a sufficient conviction, the determination should be made in the interests of the defendant even if there are circumstances, such as whether the defendant’s assertion or defense is contradictory or unreasonable, and there is suspicion of guilt.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Do1549, May 30, 2017). It is recognized that the Defendant did not take measures, such as acquiring a victim’s mobile phone at “C” store and leaving it to the said store or the police.

However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the record, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone cannot be deemed to have been proved to the extent that the defendant's cell phone was stolen with the victim's intention of larceny and illegal acquisition, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

① On the day of the instant case, the Defendant: (a) sought clothes purchased and kept in custody on the day before the instant case; and (b) entered the said store to request the Defendant to charge a mobile phone.

However, the above employees could not charge mobile phones, and they could not keep clothes any longer.

The defendant argued that the police officer did not leave the acquired mobile phone to the store, but he did not want to directly find it to the main body because the employee sent back to the police officer at a corner in the above process.

(2)