2. Determination

A. The probative value of evidence is left to the discretion of a judge, but such judgment must 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, it is not required to exclude all possible doubts, and rejection of evidence recognized as having probative value by causing a suspicion without a reasonable ground is not allowed beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence. The term “reasonable doubt” in this context refers to not all questions and correspondence, but to the reasonable doubt as to the probability of a fact that is inconsistent with the facts that is not necessary in accordance with logical and empirical rules. As such, the circumstance favorable to the defendant should be based on the sexual reasoning theory identified in relation to the recognition of facts that is favorable to the defendant, so it cannot be said that the doubt based on conceptual or abstract possibility is included in a reasonable doubt.

Therefore, there is consistency in the statements about the victims of sexual assault in their major parts.

In the case of determination, solely on the grounds that there is a part that is somewhat inconsistent with the statement of the remaining minor matters or that there is a part that appears to be insufficient rationality, the credibility of the statement does not be denied without permission (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Do10728, Mar. 14, 2008; 2016Do21269, Jun. 15, 2018). Furthermore, in the course of considering the issue of the damage inflicted on sexual assault or sexual harassment, the victim suffers from negative public opinion or disadvantageous treatment, and damage to personal exposure.