2. In a judgment of conviction in a criminal trial, the conviction should be based on evidence of probative value, which makes it possible for a judge to have the truth that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt, and if there is no such proof, the conviction cannot be made even if there is a suspicion of guilt against the defendant.

In addition, in a case where the first instance court rendered a not guilty verdict of the facts charged on the ground that there is insufficient evidence to exclude reasonable doubt after undergoing the examination of evidence, such as witness examination, etc., in view of the fact that the criminal appellate court has the nature as a post-examination even though it is still a part of the trial and the spirit of substantial direct examination as prescribed in the Criminal Procedure Act, it may be probable or doubtful as to the facts partially opposed

Even if the evidence of the first instance court does not reach the extent to sufficiently resolve the reasonable doubt causing the first instance trial, such circumstance alone alone alone does not readily conclude that there was an error of mistake of facts in the judgment of the first instance court that there is insufficient proof of the crime, and thus, it should not be found guilty of the facts charged (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do8610, Apr. 15, 2016). The lower court, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, determined that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone cannot be deemed to have been proven

Examining the circumstances in detail presented by the court below in comparison with the records of this case, the judgment of the court below is justified.