[1] The case affirming the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on the ground that the facts charged are insufficient to acknowledge even if all indirect evidence are combined

[2] The binding force of the judgment on the reversal and transmission

[1] The case affirming the judgment of the court below that found the defendant not guilty on the ground that the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient in light of the fact that there is no direct evidence to acknowledge the facts charged, the probative value of the most important indirect evidence to support the facts charged has been decreased considerably by new evidence presented at the court below after remanding the case, and the remaining indirect evidence is not sufficient to support the facts charged even if all other indirect evidence are taken into account, the evidence submitted by the court below cannot be found guilty without reasonable doubt.

[2] The court to which the case was remanded from the court of final appeal is bound by the factual and legal judgment of the court of final appeal as the reason for reversal, but the same shall not apply in a case where there is a change in the relation of evidence, which forms the basis for binding judgment, as new evidence was submitted in the course of the trial following the remand.

[1] Article 250 of the Criminal Code, Articles 307 and 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act / [2] Article 8 of the Court Organization Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 83Do712 delivered on September 13, 1983 (Gong1983, 1528), Supreme Court Decision 93Do2958 delivered on January 28, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 865), Supreme Court Decision 2001Do4392 delivered on November 27, 2001 (Gong2002Sang, 228) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 83Do2613 delivered on December 13, 1983 (Gong1984, 235), Supreme Court Decision 89Do2360 delivered on March 13, 190 (Gong190, 917) and Supreme Court Decision 9Do4937 delivered on December 10, 196 (Gong1994, 994)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Law Firm Shin-soo, Attorneys Lee In-bok et al.

Supreme Court Decision 96Do1783 Delivered on November 13, 1998

Seoul High Court Decision 98No3116 delivered on February 17, 2001

The appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the facts charged of this case is as follows: The deceased non-indicted 1, who was in a bad relationship with the deceased non-indicted 1's unique nature of the deceased non-indicted 1, who was her wife, and his father's father's father's father's father's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son.

2. The lower court found that Nonindicted Party 1 and Nonindicted Party 1 were not guilty on the ground that there was no possibility that Nonindicted Party 1 and Nonindicted Party 1 could have known the Defendant’s whereabouts on the day of their death, on which Nonindicted Party 1 and Nonindicted Party 2 could have known that Nonindicted Party 3 could have known that Nonindicted Party 1 could have known that Nonindicted Party 3 could have known the Defendant’s whereabouts on the day of their death, and that Nonindicted Party 1 could not have known that Nonindicted Party 3 could have known the Defendant’s whereabouts on the day of their death and that Nonindicted Party 1 could not have known that Nonindicted Party 3 could have known the Defendant’s whereabouts on the day of their death, and that Nonindicted Party 1 could not have known that Nonindicted Party 3 could have known the Defendant’s whereabouts on the day of their death and that Nonindicted Party 1 could not have known the Defendant’s whereabouts on the day of their death and that Nonindicted Party 3 could have known the Defendant’s whereabouts on the day of their death.

3. Criminal facts are not necessarily required to be proved only by direct evidence, but also by indirect evidence consistent with logical and empirical rules, and if indirect evidence does not have full probative value as to an individual criminal facts, if it is deemed that the whole evidence does not have full probative value as to an individual criminal facts, the criminal facts can also be acknowledged even if it is judged that the whole evidence is insufficient to be comprehensively examined.

However, in this case, there is no direct evidence to prove the facts charged, and there is no probative value that can support the defendant's statement by considering the fact that the probative value of various evidences on the time of death of the deceased non-indicted 1 and the deceased non-indicted 3, the most important indirect evidence to support the facts charged, and then the testimony of the Switzerland legal person newly examined at the court below or the result of fire reproduction test, etc., which were considerably decreased by the defendant's testimony or the result of the new investigation at the court below, and immediately after the case, there is no evidence to support the facts charged even if all other indirect evidence such as the situation of single distribution, such as the condition of distribution for the defendant's arms remaining in the defendant's arms or the conflict between the defendant and the deceased non-indicted 1, the evidence submitted at the court below cannot be judged guilty without reasonable doubt, considering that the defendant's statement is insufficient, such as the result of a false horse detection detection test, etc., and there is no error in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence as alleged in the grounds for appeal.

On the other hand, while the court that received the case from the court of final appeal is bound by the factual and legal judgment of the court of final appeal as the reason for reversal, the same shall not apply to the case where there is a change in the relation of evidence which served as the basis for binding judgment after submitting new evidence in the course of the trial after remand (see Supreme Court Decision 95Do830 delivered on December 10, 196). Thus, there is no error of misapprehending the legal principles as to the binding force of the judgment remanded, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of final appeal, in the instant case where the court below accepted new evidence submitted after remand and found

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.

Justices Zwon (Presiding Justice)