beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
Summary of Grounds for Appeal
According to the evidence, since the defendant can recognize the fact that he had the victim's sexual intercourse, the court below found the defendant guilty of the part of the charges in this case, and found the defendant guilty of the part of the charges in this case, and found the guilty guilty of the part of the indecent act by indecent act by indecent act by indecent act by indecent act
2. Determination
A. The establishment of facts constituting an offense in a criminal trial shall be based on strict evidence of probative value, which leads a judge to have a reasonable doubt, to the extent that there is no room for a reasonable doubt. Thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof fails to sufficiently reach the extent that such conviction would lead to such a conviction, even if there is a doubt of guilt, such as the defendant’s assertion or defense contradictory or uncomfortable dismissal, it should be determined in the interests of the
(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 extent of sufficiently resolving the reasonable doubt caused by the first instance trial, such circumstance alone alone does not lead to concluding that there was an error of misconception of facts in the judgment of the first instance court that lack of proof of crime (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do11428, Feb. 18, 2016). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, not only the CCTV video (ch03:13:20 to 13:24), as stated by the lower court, (i) the instant case, is a health belt, but also (ch03:46 to 13:50).