Although the Defendant testified to the effect that “I do not have any fact consistent with April 4, 2014, and I tried to make D so that I would be punished to the maximum extent possible,” the Defendant made a true statement in the investigative agency on April 4, 2014.

Accordingly, the defendant made a false statement contrary to his memory and raised perjury.

2. The fact that a criminal judgment already became final and conclusive on the same facts as the judgment was based on the material evidence, and thus, it is difficult to adopt a decision on the facts in the criminal trial.

Unless there are special circumstances acknowledged, facts contrary to this cannot be acknowledged (see Supreme Court Decisions 94Da39215, Jan. 12, 1995; 982Da10424, Nov. 26, 1999, etc.). The probative value of evidence is left to the discretion of a judge, but the judgment 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 not be reasonable doubt, but it does not require that all possible doubts be excluded, and the rejection of evidence to be admitted as probative value goes beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence is not permitted. The reasonable doubt here is based on logical and empirical rules as to the probability of facts inconsistent with the facts requiring proof, and is in relation to the recognition of facts favorable to the defendant.