The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Daejeon High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Criminal facts in a criminal trial ought to be established based on strict evidence with probative value, which leads a judge to have a reasonable doubt, and in a case where the prosecutor’s proof does not reach the degree to have such conviction, the determination ought to be made in the interests of the defendant even if there are doubtful suspicions of guilt, such as inconsistency with the defendant’s assertion or defense or non-competence.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2012Do231 Decided June 28, 2012). 2. We examine the gist of the judgment of conviction revealed by the lower court.

Under the premise that the victim’s death was not the victim’s suicide, the Defendant’s planned crime is no choice but the victim’s suicide. ① On November 4, 2013, the victim consulted with police officers on three occasions, the victim made a statement to the effect that “PT disease on the day of the instant case was not seen as on November 4, 2013, and agrochemicals did not bring about the apartment of the instant case, and not on the part of agrochemicals known to be agrochemicals,” and that the statement was made before the patient’s room, and the form of the statement and the contents of the statement are naturally and objectively inconsistent with objective circumstances, and thus, the credibility of the above statement can be recognized. ② The Defendant selected the victim even if the victim was in de facto in association with her husband and left home, the victim complained with the Defendant on October 25, 2013, and the Defendant was also aware of such motive for the victim’s death, and thus, the victim was also aware of the victim’s motive for the victim’s death, and thus, the victim was also aware of the victim’s motive and the victim.