2. The finding of guilt in a criminal trial ought to be based on evidence of probative value, which leads to the judge’s conviction that leads to a lack of reasonable doubt. As such, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof does not sufficiently reach the level to ensure such conviction, the determination ought to be made in the interests of the defendant even if the defendant was suspected of guilt (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Do13416, Jul. 24, 2014). Meanwhile, in a case where the defendant consistently denies the facts charged and the victim’s statement is de facto only based on the victim’s statement that conforms to the facts charged in the record, to find the defendant guilty on the basis of the victim’s statement, there is a demand for high probative value that is likely to have little doubt about the authenticity and accuracy of the statement, and determination whether the defendant has such probative value should take into account the rationality, consistency, objective reasonableness, etc. of the statement made by the victimized person (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do16413, May 10).

The allegation to that effect is consistent.

However, the victim's statements in investigation agencies and this court, which seem to correspond to the facts charged in the instant case, can be admitted by the evidence.