2. In a judgment, the burden of proof for the criminal facts prosecuted in a criminal trial is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction is to be based on the evidence of probative value that makes the judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, the suspicion of guilt is between the defendant, even if there is no such evidence.

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

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1151 Decided July 22, 2010. The lower court acquitted the Defendant on the ground that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone alone, on the grounds that it is difficult to conclude that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone, on the ground that the fact that the victim had an intention to teach the Defendant with the AB border prior to a week in the instant case, the Defendant and the victim had been in the drinking place several times, the victim did not have any pressure on the body contact of the instant case, and that the Defendant did not have any direct intimidation, and the victim did not have any direct intimidation. After the issuance of the instant case, the Defendant and the victim continued to have been in his/her hands, and the victim had been in possession of the Defendant and G, and the Defendant and the victim were transmitted to the Defendant and G, and that there was no intention to force the Defendant to commit an indecent act against the Defendant at the time of physical contact as described in the facts charged.

Examining the above judgment of the court below in light of the above legal principles, closely comparing the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the court below's determination of not guilty of the facts charged of this case is just and acceptable, and there is no new evidence to acknowledge this in the court below, and therefore, it is erroneous of the facts by the prosecutor.