The finding of guilt in a criminal trial ought to be based on evidence of probative value, which leads a judge to have a conviction that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, the doubt of guilt against the defendant is doubtful even if there is no such evidence.

Even if the defendant's interest can only be determined as the defendant's interest, there are D's legal statement and police's statement, injury diagnosis statement, and photographs, etc. as evidence that seem to correspond to the facts charged, while the defendant changed to the purport that, from the police officer called up at the time of the case to the time of this court, the defendant "it is less than D's arms because D had a conflict with D, but it is less than D's losses, but it does not go beyond D's sl's sl's sl's sl's kne, etc. entering the above place, and kne's kne."

D’s statement, which seems consistent with the part of the facts charged, that “the defendant has injured knee, etc. by being pushed the floor by being pushed the floor,” is not consistent with D’s statement to the effect that ① the location and form (15 pages) of D’s knee-se-se-se-se-se-se-se-se-se-se-se-se-se-se-se-se-se-se-se-se-se-se-sk-se-se-se-se-se-se-se-se-se-se-se-se-sim-se-se-se-sim-se-se-se-se-se-se-sim-se-se-se-se-se-