According to the various evidences submitted by the prosecutor, the fact that the defendant raped the victim two times, and the fact that the defendant reported false facts and the victim was innocent can be acknowledged.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which did not recognize it is erroneous.

2. Determination

A. In the relevant legal doctrine criminal trial, the conviction should be based on evidence of probative value that leads a judge to the conviction that the facts charged are true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt, and if there is no such proof, the suspicion of guilt is against the defendant even.

Even if the defendant cannot be found guilty,

(See Supreme Court Decisions 2001Do2823 Decided August 21, 2001; 2005Do8675 Decided March 9, 2006, etc.). Also, in a case where the first instance court rendered a not guilty verdict of charges on the grounds that there is insufficient evidence to exclude reasonable doubt after undergoing the examination of evidence, such as examination of witness, etc. under the Criminal Procedure Act, in view of the fact that the first instance court has the nature as an ex post facto trial even after the existence of the criminal appeal, and the spirit of substantial direct cross-examination under the Criminal Procedure Act, etc., the first instance court may raise a probability or doubt as to the facts that oppose part of the result of the

Even if it does not reach the extent of sufficiently resolving the reasonable doubt caused by the first instance trial, such circumstance alone alone alone does not readily conclude that the lack of proof of a crime erred by mistake of facts in the judgment of the first instance court, and thus, cannot be found guilty of the facts charged (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do8610, Apr. 15, 2016). In addition, collective opinions presented to the full bench as to the recognition of facts by a juror composed of citizens, who are cultivated by strict selection procedures in the criminal trial procedure conducted in the form of a participatory trial, introduced to enhance the democratic legitimacy and trust of the judiciary.