beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. In light of the fact that each evidence corresponding to the facts charged and the defendant's police statement, which is the impeachment evidence corresponding thereto, are sufficient to prove guilt, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of the facts charged, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. In a criminal trial of relevant legal principles, the finding of guilt ought to be based on evidence with probative value, which makes it possible for a judge to have a reasonable doubt that the facts charged are true, to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt, and if there is no such proof, the conviction cannot be determined even if there is a suspicion of guilt against the defendant.
In addition, in light of the fact that the criminal appellate court has the character as a post-examination even after the fact, and the spirit of substantial direct trial as provided in the Criminal Procedure Act, there is a lack of evidence to exclude a reasonable doubt after the first instance court has gone through the examination of evidence such as the examination of witness.
In a case where a not-guilty verdict is rendered on the facts charged, if it does not reach the extent that it can sufficiently resolve the reasonable doubt raised by the first instance trial even if the probability or doubt about some opposing facts may be raised as a result of the appellate trial’s examination, there is an error of mistake in the determination of facts in the first instance judgment, which lacks proof of crime solely
F. The lower court’s determination 1 is consistent with this part of the facts charged in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court as to the part of the Defendant’s deception of the victim as U.S., even though he/she knew that the content sold by the Defendant was a domestic product (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do8610, Apr. 15, 2016, etc.).