There is no direct evidence to prove the fact that the Defendant spreaded oil to “the first floor stairs” and “the second floor stairs” and “the second floor stairs”.

Although the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts.

The punishment sentenced by the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable.

In a criminal trial on mistake of facts, the conviction shall be based on evidence with probative value, which makes it possible for a judge to have the truth that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt. If there is no evidence to form such a conviction, even if there is doubt that the defendant is guilty, it shall be judged as the interest of the defendant. However, such conviction should not be formed by direct evidence, but it may be formed by indirect evidence unless it violates the empirical and logical rules. Even if the indirect evidence does not have full probative value as to the facts of crime individually, if it is deemed that there is a comprehensive probative value as to the whole evidence, if it is deemed that there is a comprehensive probative value as to the facts of crime (see Supreme Court Decisions 2008Do507, Mar. 27, 2008; 2001Do4392, Nov. 27, 2001; 2001). It does not mean that there is a reasonable doubt based on logical and empirical rules, and thus, it cannot be included in the probability of facts.