1. In a criminal trial, the formation of a conviction is not necessarily required to be formed by direct evidence, but can be based on indirect evidence, and indirect evidence should not be individually or separately assessed, and should be evaluated in a comprehensive manner with respect to each other in full, and must be evaluated in a close and contradictory manner.

Although the probative value of evidence is left to a judge’s free judgment, it should be consistent with logical and empirical rules, and the degree of the formation of a conviction to be found guilty in a criminal trial should be such that there is no reasonable doubt. However, this does not require to the extent that all possible doubts are excluded, and rejection of evidence that is recognized as having probative value is beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence.

The reasonable doubt here refers to a reasonable doubt as to the probability of facts that cannot be matched with the facts in accordance with logical and empirical rules, rather than all questions and correspondences. Since the circumstances favorable to the defendant need to be based on the theory of sexual prosecution that grasped the facts in relation to the fact finding, the doubt based on conceptual or abstract possibility cannot be deemed to be included in a reasonable doubt.

(2) According to the reasoning of the judgment below on June 25, 2004, according to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below, among the facts charged in this case, sent text messages with the same contents as the statement to the victim F using G’s KT, KT, the Internetcom website ID, and G number was abolished as of May 201, and G number was subscribed to ST.