In full view of the fact that the defendant resisted to E who caused an accident by driving his own vehicle or did not raise a problem, and that the defendant was reported to be driving by himself first AC even though he driven the instant vehicle, the lower court determined that the defendant was not guilty of the facts charged against the defendant even though he could have conspired with E, erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. In a criminal trial, the conviction of guilt should be based on evidence with probative value, which could lead a judge to feel true enough to have a reasonable doubt. Unless such proof is given, the conviction cannot be determined even if there is a suspicion of guilt against the defendant.

In addition, in light of the fact that the criminal appellate court has the nature as a post-examination even after the fact that it has the nature of a post-examination and the spirit of the de facto direct examination under the Criminal Procedure Act, 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 a reasonable doubt after undergoing the examination of witness, etc., it may be probable or doubtful as to the facts partially opposed

Even if it does not reach the degree of sufficient resolution of reasonable suspicion caused by the first instance trial, it is concluded that there was an error of mistake of facts in the judgment of the first instance court that lack of evidence of crime.