beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. In full view of the following facts: (a) the victim D consistently stated the facts damaged; (b) the witness F and G made a statement that corresponds to the facts charged; and (c) some of the J statements and reports were made; and (d) the court below acquitted the victim of the facts charged in this case on the ground that the facts charged in this case were proven without any reasonable doubt; and (b) the court below
2. Determination
A. In a criminal trial, the burden of proof for the facts constituting an offense prosecuted is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction is to be based on the evidence of probative value that makes the judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, even if there is a suspicion of guilt against the defendant, it shall be determined with the benefit of the defendant.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do7261, Nov. 10, 201). In addition, in light of the spirit of substantial direct cross-examination adopted by the Criminal Procedure Act, the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court is clearly erroneous, or in exceptional cases where it is deemed significantly unreasonable to maintain the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court based on the results of the first instance court’s examination and the results of additional evidence examination conducted until the closing of argument in the appellate court, the appellate court should respect the determination on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do5313, Jun. 14, 2012).
Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment based on the aforementioned legal doctrine in light of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the lower court directly completed the examination of evidence by following the procedures for examining the witness to F, G, and J, and then, the victim D’s investigative agency and the lower court’s judgment are admissible as evidence corresponding to the facts charged