The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal, although the court below found the defendant guilty of the crime as stated in the facts charged, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts.

2. 1) In a criminal trial on relevant legal principles, the finding of guilt ought to be based on evidence with probative value, which makes it possible for a judge to have a conviction that the facts charged are true beyond a 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 light of the fact that the criminal appellate court has the character as a post-examination even after the fact, and the spirit of substantial direct trial as provided in the Criminal Procedure Act, there is a lack of evidence to exclude a reasonable doubt after the first instance court has gone through the examination of evidence such as the examination of witness.

In a case where a not-guilty verdict is rendered on the facts charged, if it does not reach the extent that it can sufficiently resolve the reasonable doubt raised by the first instance trial even if the probability or doubt about some opposing facts may be raised as a result of the appellate trial’s examination, there is an error of mistake in the determination of facts in the first instance judgment, which lacks proof of crime solely

Recognizing that the facts charged should not be found guilty (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do8610, Apr. 15, 2016). In order for the first instance court to proceed with the witness examination procedure and then determine the credibility of the statement, not only is it consistent with the reasonableness, logical and inconsistency, or empirical rule of the content itself, but also with the witness evidence or a third party’s statement, such as the witness’s appearance, attitude, and penance of the statement in the open court after being sworn before the judge, but also it is difficult to record the witness examination protocol in the open court.