A. Although there was no fact that the Defendant committed each of the larceny crimes in this case, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case was erroneous and adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In a criminal trial of a mistake of facts, the probative value of evidence is left to a judge’s free judgment, but such judgment must be consistent with logical and empirical rules, and the degree of the formation of a conviction to find a defendant guilty in a criminal trial is to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt, but to the extent that it is not required to exclude all possible suspicions that have no rationality, and rejection of evidence acknowledged as probative value without reasonable grounds is not allowed beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, and criminal facts are not necessarily required to be proven only by direct evidence, but also via indirect evidence consistent with logical and empirical rules. Even if indirect evidence does not have full probative value as to a criminal fact, if it is deemed that there is a comprehensive probative value that cannot be found solely if comprehensive examination of all evidence is conducted in relation to a criminal fact, the criminal facts can also be acknowledged.

(See Supreme Court Decision 96Do1783 delivered on November 13, 1998, etc.). In full view of the health stand and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below as to this case, the defendant can sufficiently recognize the fact that he committed each of the larceny of this case as indicated in the judgment of the court below.

Therefore, the court below's rejection of the defendant's assertion by recognizing the defendant as guilty of each of the facts charged of this case is just and acceptable, and otherwise, the court below's decision is justified.