Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case on different premise is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. The degree of the formation of a conviction in a criminal trial must be such that there is no reasonable doubt, but to the extent that it is not required to exclude all possible doubts, and rejection by causing a suspicion of having probative value without reasonable grounds is not allowed as exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence.

I would like to say.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do12112, Aug. 20, 2009). B.

The Defendant also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in this case, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion in detail on the grounds of the Defendant’s assertion and judgment as to the facts constituting the crime in this case under the title of “the grounds for the determination of the crime in this case.” In light of the above legal principles, a thorough examination of the evidence relationship recorded in the records in this case based on the legal principles as seen earlier, the lower court’s judgment is just and acceptable, and in addition, the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the first instance court, i.e., the witness J at the court of the first instance at the Defendant’s request, stating that “The construction materials in this case are acquired from G, and the Defendant is not involved in the disposition of the above construction materials.” However, the second trial date in this case