The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error) was located in the H building of Seodaemun-gu Seoul, Seoul, the Defendant’s residence at the time of the instant appeal, and there was no fact that C had stolen the victim’s wallets from C, and the Defendant was not the criminal who was taken on the field CCTV at the instant site.

2. Summary of the facts charged and the judgment of the court below

A. On July 18, 2011, the Defendant: (a) around 17:30 on July 18, 201, the Defendant: (b) laid down the clothes in the clothing store of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul, in cash 25,00 won; (c) IM (MM) 250,000 won in cash; (d) E, in a gift certificate 1; and (e) MM (MM) 250,000 won in the market price containing three credit cards.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged by adopting as evidence the witness E’s legal statement, the police statement of E, the written statement of E preparation, and the investigation report (a CCTV in the course of committing a crime).

3. Judgment of the court below

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 it would lead to such 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). B.

However, considering the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below and the court below’s duly adopted and examined the case, it is difficult to believe the victim E’s statement that the defendant designated as an offender, and even if examining the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it is difficult to view that the victim’s wall was proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt as to the fact that the victim’s wall is the defendant.