석유및석유대체연료사업법위반
All appeals are dismissed.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. As to the grounds for Defendant A’s appeal, the recognition of facts constituting an offense ought to be proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt (Article 307(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act). However, the selection of evidence and the probative value of evidence conducted on the premise of fact-finding belong to the free judgment of the fact-finding court (Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act). For the reasons indicated in its reasoning, the lower court acknowledged the Defendant guilty of facts constituting an offense in the first instance judgment, and rejected the first instance judgment, which rejected the allegation of the said Defendant, and rejected the grounds for appeal as to the mistake of facts by the said Defendant.
The allegation in the grounds of appeal is the purport of disputing the determination of facts by the lower court. It is nothing more than an error of the lower court’s determination on the selection of evidence and probative value, which belong to the free judgment of the fact-finding court. Furthermore, even when examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of free evaluation of evidence, contrary to
2. As to the reasons for the prosecutor’s appeal, in a criminal trial, the conviction shall be based on evidence with probative value sufficient to have a judge feel true enough to have a reasonable doubt, and if there is no such proof, the conviction may not be judged even if there is a suspicion of guilt against the Defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Do2823, Aug. 21, 2001; 2005Do8675, Mar. 9, 2006). The lower court, on the grounds the reasons indicated in its reasoning, did not err or waive the accusation against D without justifiable grounds by Defendant E.
The reason for appeal concerning the mistake of facts by the prosecutor is that the first deliberation decision is legitimate, as lack of evidence to determine the person.