beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. In light of the summary of the grounds for appeal (the fact-finding) and the statements of the victim and reference witness, it is recognized that the defendant was damaged by leaving the victim's vehicle.
2. Determination
A. The recognition of facts constituting an offense in a criminal trial ought to be based on strict evidence of probative value, which leads to a judge to have a reasonable doubt. Thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof fails to sufficiently reach the extent that such conviction would lead to the prosecutor’s above conviction, the determination should be made in the interests of the defendant even if there is suspicion of guilt, such as the defendant’s assertion or defense contradictory or uncomfortable dismissal.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do14487, Apr. 28, 2011). In addition, in a case where the first instance court rendered a judgment not guilty of the facts charged on the ground that there is insufficient evidence to exclude reasonable doubt after undergoing the examination of evidence, such as the examination of witness, in light of the fact that the criminal appellate court has the character as a post-trial trial even after deceiving the Defendant, and the spirit of substantial direct cross-examination under the Criminal Procedure Act, etc., the first instance court may raise probability or doubt as to the facts that
Even if it does not reach the degree of sufficiently resolving the reasonable suspicion caused by the first instance trial, such circumstance alone alone makes it difficult to prove the crime in the first instance judgment that there was an error of mistake of facts, and thus, cannot be found guilty of the charge (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do11428, Feb. 18, 2016). (b)
The lower court rendered a not guilty verdict on the instant facts charged on the grounds that the evidence alone presented by the prosecutor alone was insufficient to deem that the Defendant was harming the victim’s vehicle as stated in the facts charged, and that there was no other evidence to acknowledge this differently.
The court below held.