The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of each of the crimes of this case, although the defendant did not commit each of the crimes of this case, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts which affected the conclusion of judgment

2. Determination

A. In a criminal trial, the conviction in a criminal trial should be based on evidence with probative value sufficient to lead a judge to a reasonable doubt that the facts charged are true, and if there is no evidence to form such a conviction, even if there is doubt that the defendant is guilty, it is inevitable to determine the benefit of the defendant. However, such conviction should not be necessarily formed by direct evidence, but it is formed by indirect evidence unless it violates the rules of experience and logic. If indirect evidence does not have a complete probative value as to the facts of crime even if it does not have a complete probative value as to the facts of crime, if it is judged that there is a comprehensive probative value that can not be established independently in a case where it is considered as a whole in relation to the whole evidence.

The term “reasonable doubt” refers to a reasonable doubt as to the probability of facts that cannot be matched with facts in accordance with logical and empirical rules, rather than all questions and correspondences. As such, the grounds should be based on the sexual prejudice that was identified in relation to the recognition of facts favorable to the defendant, so the doubt based on conceptual or abstract possibility cannot be deemed to be included in a reasonable doubt (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2013Do4172, Jun. 27, 2013; 2012Do1591, Feb. 14, 2013). (b) The defendant and the defense counsel at the lower court asserted the same argument as the grounds for appeal in this case. In full view of the following circumstances, the lower court: