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 light of the fact that the appellate court has the character as a post-trial and the spirit of substantial direct trial as provided in the Criminal Procedure Act, there is insufficient evidence to exclude reasonable doubts after the first instance court has gone through the examination of evidence such as examination of witness, etc.

In light of the facts charged, in a case where a not-guilty verdict is rendered on the charge, if it does not reach the degree to sufficiently resolve a reasonable doubt causing the first instance trial even if there is a probability or doubt as to some dissenting facts, such circumstance alone is insufficient to prove the facts, and there is an error of misunderstanding the facts in the first instance trial judgment.

Upon concluding that the facts charged cannot be found guilty (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do8610, Apr. 15, 2016). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, in addition to the circumstances duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court (i.e., the victim’s statement on the occurrence of traffic accidents on the day of the instant case, stating that “the opening of a door and the right side of the taxi start from the taxi to the lower side and the right side of the taxi)” was the police investigation.