The case which acquitted the defendant on the ground that there is no evidence to the extent that the defendant is guilty, although there is a circumstantial fact that the defendant is the defendant.

The case holding that the defendant is not guilty on the grounds that there are various circumstances, such as the fact that the defendant was well aware of the victim, and that some of the articles used for the crime was in the house of the defendant, and the defendant made a statement without credibility in the course of investigation, etc., they may not be ruled out the possibility of committing the crime by a third party, and that there is no evidence to prove credibility in the process of bringing the articles used for the crime, and that there is no change in the process of bringing the articles used for the crime by the third party, and that the articles seized after the confession of the defendant's police cannot be confirmed as related to the crime in light of the victim's statement, and that it is difficult to readily conclude that the defendant's statement on the defendant's on-site absence was false, in light of various circumstances, such as the fact that there is no evidence to prove that the facts charged are true enough to give a reasonable doubt.

Articles 308 and 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant

Attorney Park Jae-young

Seoul High Court Decision 97No648 delivered on October 21, 1997

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of the facts charged in this case

The Defendant knows that the victim, who was living in the same room with the pet Nonindicted Party 1 (the victim on January 18, 1976, et al.), was diving alone at a lower level, and, upon receiving the victim’s money and valuables from the victim, tried to rape the victim;

On September 12, 1996, at around 11:00, the victim in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (detailed address omitted) opened a window in a locked room and entered the locked room. At around 11:00, 1996, the victim was able to cover the victim's face with erode, cover the erode, cover the victim's face, cover the erode, cover the victim's side 10 erode, cover the victim's eye, cover the erode, cover the erode, cut the victim's eye, cut back the erode, and cut down the erode, and then make the victim not resist. 23,00 won in cash owned by the victim in the above room. Then, the victim exceeded the victim's erode by taking advantage of the son's erode, erode and erode the victim's erode, and erode the victim's erode by taking off the victim's e.

2. Defendant's assertion;

However, the Defendant, after having made a statement from the police that led to the confession of the above facts charged, asserted the following facts from the prosecution to the prosecution, and denied the facts charged in this case.

A. The date and time of the commission of the indictment is that the Defendant was engaged in electronic recreation in the electronic amusement room near the place where the crime was committed, and the cartoon was sent to the cartoon room, and there was no place where the crime was committed.

B. B. Before the day of the crime indicated in the indictment, the victim and Nonindicted 1, who was the defendant's his house after divingd with the victim and Nonindicted 1, who was the defendant's his house on the day of the crime, were found to have been on the day before the crime was committed. At around 13:00, the victim and Nonindicted 1 knew of the fact between the police station due to the investigation of this case, and the defendant discovered the fact at the police station, and he was in the same manner with the police station, and there is suspicion of the defect that the above victim's body was similar to the defendant, while complying with the police officer's investigation, the above victim was under suspicion of the defect that the above victim's body was similar to the defendant, such as Nexta (No. 1) used for the crime, a cover (No. 2), and a cover with the defendant's father and Nonindicted 2, who was the defendant's house, and the police officer made a confession from the police station as the defendant's relative to the above defendant.

3. Determination

A. Presumed facts

First of all, according to the witness’s statement made by the victim in this court, the first statement made by the judicial police officer against the victim, each statement made by the first statement made by the police officer against the non-indicted 1, each statement made by the police verification protocol and each video recorded in the police investigation protocol, each video recorded in the police’s seizure protocol (section 5) and each video recorded in the police (section 216 to Chapter 219 of the Investigation Records), one seized KON, one (No. 1), one (No. 2), Scarf cover (No. 3), one (No. 2), one (No. 4), one (No. 5), one (No. 5 (No. 5), and one (No. 6) from which the above victim suffered, the fact that the above victim has been deprived of money and valuables by the method of indictment recorded in the indictment, can be acknowledged.

B. Determination on the evidence that the defendant is an offender

However, as to whether the defendant is an offender, there are statements made by the police that the defendant led to the above crime, the victim, the police from Nonindicted Party 1 to this court, the statements made by Nonindicted Party 2 at the police, the witness Kim-ran, the statements made by the police, the statements made by Nonindicted Party 2 at this court, the protocol of inspection by the police, the protocol of seizure, the protocol of search and seizure, the opinion of the defendant prepared by the Park Jong-ho as to whether the defendant is an offender, photographs (section 216 to Chapter 219 of the Investigation Records), etc.

(1) The confession at the police of the defendant and the evidence related thereto

Of the above evidence, the statement to the effect that the confession made by the defendant at the police, the witness Kim Yong-ran, and the voluntary scrap metal made by the defendant to the effect that "the defendant led to the confession of the crime above at the police" in this court, and the statement to the effect that "the defendant led to the commencement of the crime" in the police statement to the effect that "the defendant led to the commencement of the crime (section 3)," and the statement to the effect that the defendant led to the confession of the crime and seizes the clothes used for the crime (section 9 of the Investigation Records) shall not be admitted as evidence unless the defendant denies its contents.

(2) Statement of the victim on whether the defendant committed a crime

한편, 이 사건 범행의 범인이 피고인이라는 점에 부합하는 듯한 피해자의 진술부분을 보면, 피해자는 경찰에서, "범행을 당하던 때의 느낌에 비추어 이 사건 범행 장소인 위 집에 자주 찾아오고 잠을 자고 가기도 하는 피고인이 범인이 아닌가 하는 생각이 들었는데, 지금에 와서는 피고인이 범인이 틀림 없다고 생각한다."는 취지로 진술하였으며(제2회 진술), "범행을 당한 직후 범인의 체격이 피고인과 똑같았고, 범행 시각 무렵에 자신의 방에 올 사람은 피고인 뿐이라서, 범인이 피고인이라고 생각을 했다."고 진술하였다(제3회 진술). 그리고 검찰에서는 "공소사실과 같은 범행을 당하면서 확실히 피고인이 범인이라고 단정할 수는 없으나, 발견된 증거물로 보나 피고인의 진술로 보나 피고인이 범인이라는 의심이 든다. 이전에도 피고인이 자신을 깜짝 놀라게 한 적이 있고, 범행을 당하면서 그 범인의 체격이 피고인과 비슷하기 때문에 범행을 당하는 순간 피고인이 범인이라고 순간적으로 판단하였다."고 진술하였다.

However, the above victim stated at the first statement of the police immediately after the crime was committed that "the person who took her hair with her hair, committed the same crime as the facts charged, and the person who took her clothes cannot be identified by taking the her clothes. However, at the 23-clock of the new wall, there was three books following him/her in the vicinity of the Gangnam-gu, Seoul, Gangnam-gu, at the 23-clock of the new wall, and that "the person is a criminal." The statement made at this court stated that "the police officer presented her oil at the scene of the crime and received the statement that he/she is the criminal while she is the criminal, and the defendant was the criminal. At present, it is well known that the defendant is the criminal, and the defendant did not think that he/she was the criminal at the time of committing the crime."

In light of the above victim's statement, it is difficult to believe that the victim's statement that the person who committed the crime of this case is not consistent with the victim's second and third police statements, the prosecutor's statement that the defendant is a criminal, the defendant's second and third police statements, and the prosecutor's statement that the defendant is designated as a criminal by the police, and the first police statements made before the defendant is designated as a criminal, and the above statement that the defendant is regarded as a criminal in light of the statement made by the court that guarantees the cross-examination between the defendant and his defense counsel before the defendant is identified as a criminal is difficult (In addition, according to the above victim's statement and the non-indicted 1's statement, the above victim's statement that the defendant tried to send radio call to the defendant immediately after the crime of this case was committed, and in light of the above facts, it is difficult to believe the victim's police statements and the prosecutor's statement that the defendant was a criminal.

(3) The remaining evidence

Among the above evidences, the evidence related to the confessions of the defendant and the remaining evidence except the statements of the victim do not directly prove the facts charged, but are so-called indirect evidence to prove the facts charged and then, the so-called indirect evidence to prove the facts charged. The circumstances acknowledged as the above evidences are as follows (the evidence as to the facts of recognition that the defendant is a criminal).

(A) The defendant's physical characteristics

The victim has been aware of the criminal of the crime of this case on the bridge, and the defendant's bridge also has many effects (the victim and the defendant's statements).

(B) The facts supporting the fact that the instant case was brought into existence by a person who was dismissed.

① At the time of committing the crime, the offender of the instant case: (a) the victim lockeded the victim by shouldering the victim’s face with a shoulderer and bend; (b) applied the victim’s eye to the victim’s face; (c) did not pay Mad’s horse or fluor; (d) Mad’s horse or fluor’s fluor was able to commit the crime for about one hour; (c) was fluored in the process of committing the crime; (d) did not use the victim’s fluor by using the fluor method while committing the crime; and (e) took the victim’s fluor as the body of the victim (the victim’s statement).

However, the place of crime indicated in the written indictment is that the above victim was living together with the above victim who is the defendant's pet, the defendant was frequently found in the above room, and the victim was locked as in the above non-indicted 1. The victim was also aware of himself and the victim, such as the defendant and the victim, and the defendant was well aware of the structure of the room, household placement, and the place where the goods are located. On the other hand, other than the defendant, the victim was well aware of the above victim, and there was no other person who frequently found the above room or was well aware of the structure of the room (each of the defendant and the non-indicted 1's statements).

(C) The source of the crime of oil, etc.

At the time of the commission of the crime above, covers (No. 2) and scarf (Evidence No. 3) used to cover the body of the victim at the time of the commission of the crime are all the articles left from the defendant's house. The above victim and the non-indicted 1 did not regard the above articles before the crime of this case occurred.

In addition, the KON (No. 1) used to combine the victim's grandchildren at the time of the crime, was at the scene of the crime, and Nonindicted Party 2 stated that the police was at the seat of the victim.

On the other hand, as the defendant led to the confession of the crime in the police, the police officer went to the defendant's office. The 39 foot 100 won (Evidence No. 9) in the name of one party located at the seat of the police officer was seized by the police officer on the ground that the defendant brought about when the defendant committed the crime. In the last time, the defendant denied the crime, and the part of the above broadcasts was received by the defendant as a business member, and some of them were replaced by the accounting officer of the company where the defendant was working (the prosecutor's statement), but the non-indicted 3, the above company's accounting officer, denies the fact of exchange for the money (the defendant's statement).

[Entry of Defendant, Nonindicted 2, Victim, Nonindicted 1’s Each statement, Nonindicted 3’s prosecutorial statement, and Police Seizure Report (Investigation Record No. 9)]

(D) Prior statement concerning circumstances after the Defendant committed the crime

The above victim mentioned the contents of the crime immediately after the instant case, and told that “the criminal was stampling his body as a cleaning agent.” Such remarks were made only to Nonindicted Party 1 or police officers, and the above Nonindicted Party 1 did not make such remarks to the Defendant. However, the Defendant voluntarily made a statement about the same (the above victim and Nonindicted Party 1’s statement, and the witness seal file’s statement) when the police made a confession.

(e) The defendant's body's wife

The above house, which is a criminal place of the facts charged, is located in the third floor of the building, and there is no house other than the above house in the rooftop, and the house is connected with one room, the kitchen and the toilet are installed in the house, and the entrance room is connected with the kitchen, and the kitchen and the other side of the kitchen are installed in the kitchen, and the windows are installed in the kitchen and the kitchen and the toilet, which are connected with each other, and the windows are installed in the room. At the time of this case, the entrance door and the kitchen window were opened in the kitchen, and only the windows of the room were installed.

However, on the day of the crime, the left arms and the right upper part of the defendant's upper part was inspected, and as to this, the defendant "at the day immediately before the crime was committed, the parking obstacles in the defendant's house are gathered and put into the house and faced with the gate." However, while the defendant and the non-indicted 1, who has a sexual relation with the defendant, together with the locked before the previous day, do not have the head of the body of the defendant." (The prosecutor asserts that this wife was on the day when the crime was committed, and that the defendant appears to have been on the upper part of the defendant's house which occurred after entering the door beyond the window at the time of the crime.)

(W) Nonindicted Party 1, the victim’s statement, police verification protocol, photographs attached to the investigation record, and opinion of the doctor’s favor)

(f) Facts of agreement with the victim

Meanwhile, around September 19, 196, the time when the above case was forwarded to the prosecution after the defendant was detained in the police, the defendant paid a sum of five million won to the above victim under the damage compensation of this case and agreed with the above victim (each of the statements made by the non-indicted 2 and the victim).

C. Whether the Defendant is a criminal is doubtful to conclude that he/she is an offender

However, in light of the various circumstances surrounding the instant case, the following questions are presented to acknowledge that the Defendant is a criminal offender by such indirect facts.

(1) Possibility of committing the crime by a third party

According to the statement made by the defendant at the prosecutor's office and this court, the statement made by the police immediately after the crime was committed by the victim, the above victim and the non-indicted 1's statement made at the prosecutor's office, and each of these statements made by the above victim from May 196, when the above victim started living together with the above non-indicted 1's house, which was the place where the crime was committed at night, several times. One of the above statements was going up to the 3th floor of the above house. One of the above victims was followed by the above victim, and it was inside the house of the above house and the 1st floor of the above house building again after the death and the kitchen of the above house in front of the above house building, and there was no doubt that the above victim and the above non-indicted 1's money were stolen from the above house and the victim did not appear in the order of the investigation by the police again from the above victim's statement in this case.

(2) The doubt about the crime of oil

(A) On September 8, 196, the Defendant recognized that scarf (No. 3) and scarf (Evidence No. 2) at the scene of the crime were in his house, and the Defendant stated the above scarf (Evidence No. 13) and the video tape No. 2 at the scene of the crime. On the one hand, the Defendant returned the video tapes borrowed from the video rental store (Scarf) at the location of the scarf (Scarf) on the 9th day following the following day, and returned the above scarf to the above scarf (Evidence No. 13), and then returned the tapes to the above scarf at the 1’s house, and then, the Defendant did not use the above scarf at the time of the above scarf and left the above 1’s house, and the Defendant did not use the above scarf at the time of the above scarf’s return of the above scarf and the above 1’s wall.

(B) With respect to the KON (No. 1) discovered at the scene of crime, the defendant stated that it would not be known to KON, while the father of the defendant stated that it was from his own house at the time of the police investigation, and that the defendant was finally identified as a criminal, the issue of whether KON has been in the defendant's house or not shall be an important proviso to reveal whether the defendant was a criminal. The evidence proving that the KON was in the defendant's house is used by the police, and that the KON (No. 1) now used for the crime of this case, is that it was used before the police, and that other KON is used together with 56 other KON in order to combine his/her cover, etc. However, in light of the above fact that the KON has been used in the police station and the prosecution, it is hard to conclude that the KON has used it as one's own, and that it is not known to KON, and that it has been used before it.

(3) Questions on seized articles

(A) The police discovered that oil (ON, scarf, scarfs, turfs) at the scene of the crime came out of the Defendant’s house, concluded the Defendant as a criminal, into force the Defendant, and seized Sweg (No. 10), Bab (No. 11), and Mobs (No. 12), which the Defendant had worn at the Defendant’s room when committing the crime. The police seized 100 foot (No. 9) in the face of 100 foot (No. 100 foot). This is a strong doubt as to whether the Defendant could be admitted as evidence to support the Defendant’s criminal.

The above victim made a statement to the effect that "the crime of rape, which was sustained by the defendant at the time of the commission of the crime, shall be exempted in light of the fear of the crime committed during the commission of the crime" from the police to the court. However, the physical clothes of chemical products actually seized after the confession of the defendant, which are the physical clothes of the chemical products that were made out of seizure after the confession of the defendant, are sound, and thus, they are likely to face the skin. In addition, Swegs that were seized after the confession that the defendant sustained at the time of the commission of the crime, are in a brightness color. The color of the color is that the first statement made by the police, which was made by the victim at the time of the crime, is a high color, and its color was entirely different.

(B) In addition, the above victim made a statement that "the criminal had been flaged." Since the police, according to the police confession of the defendant, the police officers seized the articles used by the defendant at the time of committing the crime, but the white exercise did not exist in the defendant's house and did not seize them. In addition, according to the legal statement made by the defendant and the above non-indicted 1, according to the defendant and the above non-indicted 1's testimony, the defendant is recognized to have been flaged in

[Along with the possibility of the victim's misunderstanding or saved with regard to the above Swegs, brus, and saves worn by a criminal, it seems that the above three types of swegs (which refer to the materials of the balgs, the color of Swegs, and the color of the swegs) are very exceptional in light of the empirical rule]

(C) On the other hand, the above victim stated in this court that "the 500 foot paper was mainly used for the 500 foot paper, and some of the 100 foot paper were left at the time of committing the crime" (However, the prosecutor stated that "the above 500 foot paper was in the low fluor, and its contents are somewhat different." The above 100 foot paper confiscated from the defendant was 10 foot paper and 500 foot paper. Thus, if the defendant was the offender of this case, it cannot be concluded that the above 100 foot paper was used in the above 50 foot paper, and only 100 foot paper was used in the above fluor, and it was difficult to recognize that the defendant wearing the 100 foot paper was worn at the time of committing the crime as above, and there is still no doubt that the above 100 foot paper was related to the defendant's fluoral paper.

(4) Questions relating to prior statements concerning circumstances after the Defendant committed the crime

As above, the above victim or the non-indicted 1 made a cleaning statement at the police station. The above victim's statement at the police station and the prosecutor's office that "after the crime, the defendant made a statement about the crime in this case at the same place as the defendant, and again made a statement at the same time as the defendant, and the defendant was under investigation at the same place. The defendant did not make his own statement about the fact at the time of the crime and did not ask the police officer about it. The defendant was aware of how he was aware of the above facts, and the defendant stated that he was the victim's behavior at the time of the crime. The defendant's statement at the time of the crime. The victim's statement at the time of the defendant's statement at the police station and the prosecutor's office that he was not the victim's statement at the time of the crime. The victim's statement at the time of the crime was made after the victim's statement at the time of the crime. The defendant's statement at the second prosecutor's office and the prosecutor's office's office's office's office's statement that the defendant made the above statement.

(5) A question about the body of the defendant

However, according to each image of the images (such as Chapters 112, 113, and Chapters 116, and 217, etc. of investigation records) around the scene of crime in the investigation records, the height of the above window (the kitchen window seems to have been set up in light of the above victim and Nonindicted Party 1’s legal statement) seems to be merely the height of the adult man’s tolerance. However, it is doubtful whether the window exceeds this window, and whether such a room may occur.

(6) A mutual agreement between the defendant's family members

In addition, considering that the parents of the defendant's parents reached an agreement on this case around September 19, 196, the non-indicted 2 stated in this court that "the defendant denies the defendant's crime, but judged that it would be favorable for the defendant to reach an agreement with the victim on the part of his parents." Thus, even in the situation where the defendant denies the crime, it is sufficiently possible for the parent to attempt such agreement from the perspective of the victim to the point of view of the parent. Therefore, it shall not be considered as a ground to support the defendant's conviction upon the agreement with the victim.

D. Sub-committee

The question points on the crime of this case are as above. (b) as described in the above paragraph (b) above, ① the fact that the case was committed by the face-to-face scamb, and the fact that the serious scambling scambling scambling scamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscams, ② the fact that the defendant's body cannot be found to have been found to be disadvantageous to the defendant at the time of the crime of this case, ④ there is no doubt that the defendant's body cannot be found to have any other evidence or evidence.

E. Determination on other evidence submitted by the Prosecutor

(1) Evidence on the Defendant’s assertion of absence at the site

(A) The Defendant, at the time of committing the crimes written in the indictment, did not appear at the scene at the time of the commission of the indictment, and went to the scene of the so-called “on-site attendance” that he did not go in order to 10 minutes or 15 minutes of a cartoon room (not later than 11:30 but about 11:30 minutes from around 11 to 15 minutes), and the prosecutor said that the Defendant’s above assertion is false on the grounds of the police officer of a cartoon story, the prosecutor’s statement, the prosecutor’s statement, and the prosecutor’s statement of an electronic amusement room, etc.

(B) First of all, the Defendant: (a) obtained 5 and 6 of the above cartoon stories from Song Pung-hee, and took cartoons in a tension; (b) had taken the cartoon at his own will (the second and third statements of the Prosecutor’s Office). Meanwhile, the Defendant reported Non-Party 1’s home at the time Non-Party 1’s house was approved anti-strings, red reflectr, red reflectr (which covers knenee) and sand (the Defendant and Non-Party 1’s statement); (b) the above Song Pung-hee reported that he was over a cartoon book, and 5 and 6 tickets of red half-strings, red-strings, verification system double-strings, and the Defendant did not have taken the middle part of his book; and (c) the Defendant did not make any statement.

However, the defendant asked "whether or not there has been a good reputation" in the cartoon book, and "I find that the above cartoon was read after finding out the above cartoon according to the horses of Ameri (the third statement of the prosecutor's office). On the other hand, even according to the above statement of Ameri, it is consistent with the defendant's statement as to this point because the 5 and 6 right of hostiles were first delivered for the first time between the day and the first day. In addition, even though the defendant was aware of the fact that he had arrived at the above victim's house, which is the place where the crime was committed at 1 p.m., and found the victim again to the police station after finding the fact that he was the same as the defendant and the non-indicted 1 in the police station (the defendant and the non-indicted 1's legal statement). In light of the above facts, the defendant appears to have been the above cartoon at least before 1 p.m. on that day.

In this regard, even if there is no person other than the above person mentioned in the above person's cartoon, other person than the above person showed cartoon prior to 1:00 p.m., he was the defendant, and there is doubt that the above person was not the defendant, but the above person was the defendant, and the above person stated that "the above cartoon book is about 23 persons at 1:0 p.m. and 23 persons at 2:0 p.m." In addition, the above cartoon book is stated that "the above cartoon book is about 1:0 p.m. and 23 persons at 1:0 p.m.." If there are several persons in the above cartoon book in the P.m. on the P.m., even if the defendant did not view the cartoon book as the above person stated in the P.m., it is possible to accept the defendant's criminal act (the time when the defendant committed the crime in this case according to the victim's statement was about 12:00 p.m.).

(C) Meanwhile, according to the statement made by the prosecution by the defendant, which is the main owner of the electronic amusement room, that the defendant she would her her her her her her her her her her her her 's her 's her 's her 's 11th day', a person engaged in her her 's her 's her 's her 's her 's her 's 's her' and hermen' her 's her 's 's her 's 's 's her' 's 's her 's 's 's 's '

In addition, even if the defendant was assumed to play an electronic game when it is not a witness's view, even if the defendant had done an electronic game, it is impossible to play an electronic game after the first p.m. (the police station had the same person as Nonindicted 1), and if the defendant had been transferred at 1 p.m. before the o.m., it is inevitable to see that he/she was engaged in an electronic game by finding the electronic amusement room immediately after the crime. It is also difficult to think that this is also in light of the empirical rule.

[The fact that the defendant considered 5 and 6 "the day of the crime," and that the defendant engaged in electronic entertainment was highly probable. If the defendant committed the crime of this case, the defendant committed the crime of this case, then he did the crime at the police station for about 30 minutes during about 10 minutes to about 15 minutes in the cartoon room (which can oppose the order) and then went to the scene of the crime. However, it is difficult to present more in light of the empirical rule in light of the time of sojourn in the electronic entertainment room and cartoon room and the time of their movement as seen earlier.

(D) In sum, it seems that the prosecutor’s proof of the falsity of the Defendant’s assertion in the absence of the site is insufficient (on-site proof is not merely a passive fact proof, but it is deemed that the actor bears the burden of proof to prove that the actor committed the act at the place. In addition, in order to identify the falsity of the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant called Nonindicted Party 1 on the day of the commission of the crime, the party member considered the public bath call at the public bath and the fact inquiry about the sender’s tracking call at the above Nonindicted Party 1’s house. However, it was not adopted after hearing the verbal liaison of the Korean Communications that it is impossible for the phone call at the time of the commission of the act).

(2) The evidence by which the defendant brought an action against the defendant

In addition, the statement that Nonindicted 4, who was confined with the Defendant, stated in the police that “The day when the case was forwarded to the prosecution, she would have to go back to her?” also, considering the situation at the time when the Defendant was detained as the suspect in the instant case, it cannot be said that the Defendant is a evidence supporting the fact that the Defendant was a criminal.

(f) A failure to conduct scientific investigations;

On the other hand, in this case, the original defendant was suspected of committing the crime, but the defendant was tried to commit the crime again, and again denied the crime by committing the crime. There is no trace that investigative agency intended to take fingerprints on the knife and other things used for the crime, collect the semen from the body of the victim, evaluate it, etc. The above victim was identified as a criminal, but there is no trace of investigating the crime to find the person who was behind the crime even though the victim was identified as the criminal. [The attached contents of confession made by the police are combined with the KON, Scarf, the scarf, the front cover cover of the victim's body, the necessity and method of the crime, etc., the defendant's statement is inconsistent with the above victim's statement as to the order and method of the crime, and the situation and method of the confession of the victim's body at the time of confession and the method of securing the body of the victim's statement at the time of the confession and the order of the victim's statement seems to have been made at the time of the confession.

4. Conclusion

A. The finding of guilt should be based on the evidence of probative value, which could lead to the conviction that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt. If there is no such evidence, the determination should be made with the benefit of the defendant even if there is a doubt that the defendant is guilty.

B. However, as seen earlier, there are various circumstances to suspect the Defendant as the offender of the instant case. However, on the other hand, there are many questions to conclude that the Defendant is the offender solely based on such circumstances as seen earlier, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the above facts charged have reached the extent that there is no reasonable doubt that the Defendant is true, and there is no other sufficient evidence to recognize the Defendant as the offender.

C. Ultimately, the above facts charged constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judge Song Ji-sul(Presiding Judge)