Text
The appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
The finding of guilt in a criminal trial shall be based on evidence with probative value, which makes it possible for a judge to have a correct doubt that the facts charged are true (Article 307(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act). If there is no such proof, the conviction cannot be rendered even if there is suspicion of guilt against the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Do2823, Aug. 21, 2001; 2005Do8675, Mar. 9, 2006). Furthermore, the selection of evidence and the probative value of evidence conducted on the premise of fact finding belong to the free judgment of the fact-finding court (Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act). The court below rejected the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor on the grounds that the first instance judgment, which acquitted the defendants on the grounds that they cannot be found to have violated duty of care required in the course of purchasing precious metals, deeming the defendants to be justifiable and did not accept the grounds for appeal on the facts of the prosecutor.
The allegation in the grounds of appeal is the purport of disputing such determination of facts by the lower court, and is merely an error of the lower court’s determination on the selection and probative value of evidence, which belongs to the free judgment of the fact-finding court. In addition, even if examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the duty of care for the crime of acquiring water from
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.