2. In a judgment, the burden of proof for the criminal facts prosecuted in a criminal trial is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction is to be based on the evidence of probative value that makes the judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, the suspicion of guilt is between the defendant, even if there is no such evidence.

Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1151 Decided July 22, 2010. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the instant facts charged on the ground that “In light of the following: “When the Defendant refused a loan examination from K, it appears that the Defendant opened a bank account with intent to obtain a loan from a person who misrepresented He; the Defendant transferred money to the account directed by the said H; and the Defendant asked the deposit time and amount of the loan; and it appears that the Defendant was aware that the above H and contact were cut down and came to fall only after the contact was cut down, it appears that the Defendant would have been allowing the person who misrepresented H to obtain a loan; on the basis of the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant was not aware or foreseeable that the Defendant could easily commit the crime of Bophing.”

Considering the above judgment of the court below in light of the above legal principles, a thorough examination of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the court below's determination of not guilty of the facts charged of this case is just and acceptable.