The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which provides the principle of free evaluation of evidence, provides that the probative value of evidence shall be based on the free evaluation of a judge is appropriate for the discovery of substantial truth. As such, a fact-finding judge should consider the perception obtained in the trial proceedings and the evidence examined without all in mind while recognizing facts.

In addition, the judge's decision on the probative value of one evidence should be consistent with logical and empirical rules, and the degree of formation of a conviction to be found guilty in a criminal trial should be such that there is no reasonable doubt, but to the extent that it does not require any possible doubt, and there is probative value.

2.2. (1) The lower court: (a) the Defendant actually produced and supplied gold-type 2 of the instant charges by making it difficult for the Defendant to do so, as if he/she were to manufacture and supply a stone 9.9% of net altitude 99.9% of its price; and (b) the lower court produced and supplied gold-type 10 billion won of January 17, 2014 and 1780,000 won of January 25, 2014 to the effect that it exceeded the bounds of the principle of free evaluation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Do221, Jun. 25, 2004; 2007Do1950, May 10, 2007).

Even if the defendant created the victim's net gold counter-fluor;

It is difficult to conclude that the instant facts charged is proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt for deliberation, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, such as the victim’s statement that it is difficult to believe that the instant facts charged was made at the time of creation of a net gold-related radius.

It is difficult to see

The decision was determined.

3. However, legally adopted.