2. Determination

A. In a criminal trial of relevant legal principles, the finding of guilt ought to be based on evidence with probative value, which makes it possible for a judge to have a reasonable doubt that the facts charged are true, to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt, and if there is no such proof, the conviction cannot be determined even if there is a suspicion of guilt against the defendant.

In addition, in light of the fact that the criminal appellate court has the character as a post-examination even after the fact, and the spirit of substantial direct trial as provided in the Criminal Procedure Act, there is a lack of evidence to exclude a reasonable doubt after the first instance court has gone through the examination of evidence such as the examination of 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

Upon concluding that the facts charged are not guilty (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do8610, Apr. 15, 2016, etc.). B. 1) The lower court’s judgment that rendered and received travel expenses (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do8610, Apr. 15, 2016) was determined by the lower court based on the following circumstances, the lower court determined that the Defendant provided money and valuables to M and G in return for I solicitation was simply delivered at the middle. Thus, the evidence submitted by