beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
The summary of the grounds for appeal is specific and consistent with the statement about the victim's damage, and the content of E dialogue also conforms to the statement of the victim.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the charged facts of this case is erroneous.
Judgment
The conviction in a criminal trial 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 a case where the first instance court rendered a not guilty verdict of the facts charged on the ground that there is insufficient evidence to exclude reasonable doubt after undergoing the examination of evidence, such as witness examination, etc., in view of the fact that the criminal appellate court has the nature as a post-examination even though it is still a part of the trial and the spirit of substantial direct examination under the Criminal Procedure Act, it may be probable or doubtful as to the facts partially opposed to the result
Even if it does not reach the extent of sufficiently resolving the reasonable suspicion caused by the first instance trial, such circumstance alone alone alone does not readily conclude that the lack of proof of a crime was erroneous in the judgment of the first instance court and thus, cannot be found guilty of the charge (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do8610, Apr. 15, 2016). The lower court determined that the victim’s statement alone was insufficient to have proven that there was insufficient reasonable doubt as to the fact that the Defendant committed an indecent act, such as intentional indecent act, as the facts charged, by force majeure.
In light of the above legal principles, a thorough examination is conducted by comparing the circumstances in the lower court’s reasoning with the records.