1. Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which provides for the principle of free evaluation of evidence, provides that the probative value of evidence shall be based on the free evaluation of evidence by a judge is suitable for the discovery of substantial truth. Thus, a fact-finding judge who has a prior right to the determination of evidence shall consider the perception obtained in the trial in fact-finding and the evidence examined without any consideration.

In a criminal trial, the formation of a conviction must not be necessarily formed by direct evidence, but can be based on indirect evidence, and indirect evidence should not be individually or separately assessed, and it should be evaluated in a comprehensive manner with mutual relation without being omitted from all respects, and it should undergo a thorough and contradictory argument.

Although the probative value of evidence is left to a judge’s free judgment, it should 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, this does not require to the extent that all possible doubts are excluded, and rejection of evidence that is recognized as having probative value is beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence.

(See Supreme Court Decision 94Do1335 delivered on September 13, 1994). The term “reasonable doubt” refers not to all questions and correspondences, but to a reasonable doubt as to the probability of facts that are inconsistent with the facts that are in fact-finding based on logical and empirical rules (see Supreme Court Decision 97Do974 delivered on July 25, 1997). As such, there is a need to establish the basis for the sexual inferred theory that grasps the circumstances favorable to the defendant in relation to the fact-finding, there is a doubt based on conceptual or abstract possibility.