The finding of guilt in a criminal trial shall be based on evidence with 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 such proof, the conviction cannot be judged even if there is a suspicion of guilt against the defendant.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Do2823 Decided August 21, 2001, and Supreme Court Decision 2005Do8675 Decided March 9, 2006, etc.). Furthermore, the selection of evidence and the probative value of evidence, which are based on the premise of fact finding, belong to the free judgment of the fact-finding court.

(1) On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the first instance court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case on the grounds that (1) the Defendant’s statement was the most direct evidence corresponding to the facts charged of this case and the actual evidence of the Defendant, and that the Defendant’s statement was not reasonable in itself in light of the following circumstances: (2) the Defendant’s statement was the most direct evidence corresponding to the facts charged of this case; (3) the Defendant’s statement was not objectively unreasonable in terms of its content and its statement is inconsistent; and (4) the J and I’s statement was not consistent, and it is difficult to recognize its credibility in light of the circumstances, such as the circumstances in which it is difficult to deem that the testimony of the J and I is credibility in the statement of H; and (4) there is no other evidence to acknowledge the facts charged of this case.

In addition, the lower court, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, is justifiable in the first instance judgment, and recognized that the statement made by H in the lower court was not reliable and the circumstances leading to the additional indictment against H did not affect the said judgment, and thus, it erred by misapprehending the legal principles of the prosecutor and the prosecutor.