2. Article 307(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that “The recognition of a criminal fact shall reach a proof to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt.”

Therefore, the conviction in a criminal trial should be based on evidence of probative value, which leads a judge to the conviction that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt.

In a case where the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone does not reach the degree of conviction, the determination should be made with the benefit of the defendant even if there is a suspicion of guilt.

(See) In light of the records, the first instance court’s examination of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court of first instance is justifiable to have determined that the facts charged to the effect that the prosecutor’s disposal of the vehicle for the defendant was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt (Article 92Do1405, Sept. 1, 1992, and Article 2016Do21231, Oct. 31, 2017, etc.). In light of the records, the first instance court’s determination that the evidence submitted by the court of first instance on the grounds as stated in its holding cannot be deemed as proven beyond a reasonable doubt (Article 92Do1405, etc., of related persons, a statement that clearly stated that “the defendant was sold the vehicle for the defendant,” even if closely examining the court’s statement in the first instance court, there was no statement that

3. Since the appeal by the public prosecutor is without merit, it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.