[2] The probative value of a body examination document prepared by a physician for a underwater corpse without undergoing an autopsy

2. As to this, the lower court reversed the first instance judgment convicting the Defendant on the grounds that the Defendant’s conviction cannot be deemed to have been proven without reasonable doubt on the grounds as follows, and acquitted the Defendant.

A. Non-Indicted 1 of the lower court, who directly performed the purification work, testified that he covered the upper part of the septic tank with a thickness of 5 meters at the direction of the defendant, covered the upper part of the septic tank with a thickness of 90cm, covered the upper part of the above 90cm and the thickness of 12 meters, and took adequate safety measures such as re-conscepting four of each item in the form of well-known sperm, and the lower court, which was the management house of the church at the time of the above spaththum church, also held that such safety measures have been taken place on June 10, 200 on the day when the victim was missing. Even if Non-Indicted 1 and the new spathy were to believe that both of the above 1 and the above 1 were related to the above spathum church, and thus, it was difficult to see that the witness's testimony was made in the form of the body of the victim's testimony at least 4 meters on the site of the purification work.

B. At around 17:40 on June 10, 200, the victim was observed to the house of Associate-Jak, with the baby of Associate-Jak, the victim was found. Since there was no person who discovered the victim, while playing outside normal and around 19:00, the victim was missing at the time of the same day. However, on the same day, the victim was bound to be deemed missing at around the time of the first day. However, on June 10, 200, the non-indicted 1, who was in charge of the construction of the septic tank, completed the construction and completed the construction of the septic tank around 16:30 on June 10, 200, and completed the concrete construction of the septic tank to exceed 20:0 on the inside of the above septic tank, so if the victim had been playing near the septic tank at around 20:0 on the time of his disappearance, the victim should have discovered such concrete construction of the victim.

C. In light of the victim’s father’s father’s gambling-type, etc., on June 10, 200, the victim was found to have near the septic tank around 21:00 on the day of his/her disappearance, but the victim was not found to have any more than anything. In addition to the circumstances leading up to the search of the septic tank, it is reasonable to deem that the victim fells into the septic tank after 21:00 on the day of his/her disappearance, and considering the victim’s age and her returning habits, it is difficult to deem that the victim fell into the septic tank after 21:00.

D. In addition, according to the examination of the victim's private person, according to the examination report prepared by the police and the examination report prepared by the doctor on June 13, 2000, the victim's body was presumed to have been seriously injured and thus the victim's death could be presumed to have been seriously injured by the septic tank. In light of the fact that the death cause of the victim was clearly stated in the examination report prepared by the doctor who prepared the examination report prepared on June 11, 200 after the victim was discovered in the septic tank, it is presumed that the victim's death was beneficial to the human body inside the septic tank and the examination report prepared by the doctor who prepared the examination report prepared on June 11, 200 after the victim was discovered in the septic tank, it is presumed that the victim's death was presumed to have been benefiting from the human body inside the septic tank, and even if it was externally impossible to know the cause of the victim's death.

E. In addition, there is an interval of approximately a day from the disappearance of the victim to the discovery of the victim's body, or considering the fact that the victim's disappearance was not delayed, it is difficult to exclude the possibility that the victim might have been abandoned within the septic tank after the victim died of reasons other than the possibility that the victim actually knew.

3. However, it is difficult to accept such fact-finding and determination by the lower court in light of the following.

A. Even in a criminal trial, the probative value of evidence is left to the discretion of a judge, but such judgment must be consistent with logical and empirical rules. While the degree of formation of a conviction to be found guilty in a criminal trial is to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt but to the extent that it is not required to exclude all possible doubts that are unreasonable, rejection of evidence acknowledged as having probative value without reasonable grounds is not allowed beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, and criminal facts are not necessarily required to be proven only by direct evidence, but also via indirect evidence consistent with logical and empirical rules as long as it is consistent with logical and empirical rules. Even if indirect evidence does not have full probative value as to the criminal facts, if it is deemed that there is a comprehensive probative value as to the whole evidence, the criminal facts can also be acknowledged (see Supreme Court Decision 96Do1783, Nov. 13, 1998).

B. Examining the propriety of the lower court’s determination as to whether safety measures were taken place at the construction site, it is difficult to believe that Non-Indicted 1 and Non-Indicted 1’s statement at the lower court’s own account for the same reasons, and that the witness bottled bar was far away from the front hole of the septic tank at the time of discovery of the corpse. However, unlike Non-Indicted 1’s statement, it seems difficult to find the first instance court’s reasoning that there was no item on the top of the front door lid, and that the first door lid was very low, and that it was difficult to find the first half of the lower court’s statement that there was no possibility of the first half of the front door lided by Non-Indicted 4 in the front door lid, and that it was difficult to find the first half of the lower court’s statement that there was no possibility of the second half of the front door lided by Non-Indicted 1 in the front door lid, such as the front door liding of the lower court’s thickness.

C. The lower court determined that the likelihood of the victim’s death cannot be ruled out for the following reasons, but it cannot be deemed that there are reasonable grounds.

(1) Under the premise that the above purification work near the above septic tank, which is on the date of the disappearance, exceeded 20:0, until the completion of the work, the victim is deemed not to fall under the septic tank. However, the objective material supporting that the above construction work was carried out after 20:0 of the date of the accident, is only one (122 pages of the investigation record), and the above construction work is not carried out after the lapse of 20:0 of the time of the accident, and the number of the people who actually carried out the above construction work after the lapse of 20:0 of the time of the accident, it is difficult to view that the above construction work was carried out after the lapse of 1:5 of the time of the accident to be carried out after the lapse of 1:0 of the work at the construction site, and the number of the people who actually carried out the construction work at the construction site after the lapse of 20:0 of the last work at the construction site, and it is difficult to see that there is no other way to remove the two after the accident.

(2) The court below held that it is difficult for the victim to believe that the victim's family members fell short of the septic tank of this case on June 10, 200, on the ground that the victim's family members did not discover any specific level even after finding the vicinity of the septic tank of this case around 21:0 on the day of the disappearance, and eventually, if the victim fell short of the septic tank of this case on his own initiative, the view should be seen as 21:0 on the day of his disappearance, but the time should be seen as 21:0 on the day of his disappearance, but the victim's her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her own her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her hersium and her her her her her her her her her her her hersium.000:0000, and her her her her her her her.

(3) In principle, it is difficult to determine whether a body was dynasible or ex post facto speculation. However, if there is no reason to suspect that a body was synasible or other causes, it is presumed that the body of the victim was dynasible and presumed it as a dynasible. The body of the victim was dead for any other reason, and there was no credit to be naturally required for the death of the victim, i.e., murder by abduction or accident by traffic accident, and there is no reasonable ground to doubt the victim's disappearance time or circumstance. As seen above, it is difficult to view that there is a reasonable ground to reject the probative value of the body's written examination of the body of June 13, 200. In addition, it is difficult to conclude that the court below's determination of the body of the victim's death cannot be made up to 10 days after the death of the victim, i.e., a private person or 20 days after the death of the victim.

D. Therefore, the court below should have tried more to determine the cause of the death of the victim, the actual time of the occurrence of the accident, the situation at the time of the discovery of the corpse (a video tape recorded in the situation at the time of the body formation according to the police statement of the main bottle), the size and strength of the joint board used for construction in the city, and the comprehensive probative value of all the evidence as to the defendant's conviction based on the existing evidence or the facts revealed as a result. However, as seen earlier, the court below acquitted the defendant as to the end of the rejection of all the probative value on the basis of the individual evidence of the defendant's conviction and exceptional circumstance. Thus, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. Accordingly, the prosecutor's ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

4. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice)