The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In a criminal trial, the conviction should be based on evidence with probative value, which makes it possible for a judge to have the truth that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt, and if there is no evidence to establish such a degree of conviction, the conviction should be based on the benefit of the defendant even if there is suspicion of guilt against the defendant.

However, such a conviction must not necessarily be formed by direct evidence, but can be formed by indirect evidence unless it violates the rules of experience and logic. Even if indirect evidence does not have full probative value as to a crime individually, if it is deemed that there is a comprehensive probative value as to the whole evidence, and if it is deemed that there is a comprehensive probative value as to the whole evidence, it can be acknowledged as criminal facts.

The term “reasonable doubt” refers to a reasonable doubt as to the probability of facts that cannot be matched with the facts required based on logical and empirical rules, rather than all questions and correspondences. As such, there should be grounds for this sexual prejudice that was grasped in relation to the recognition of facts favorable to the defendant, so the doubt based on conceptual or abstract possibility cannot be deemed to be included in a reasonable doubt (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do4172, Jun. 27, 2013). Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine, the lower court and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the first instance court, the following circumstances appears to have existed, namely, the motive for the Defendant to murder the victim, and the Defendant, from around July 19, 2015, the day before the crime of this case, the victims arrived close to the community hall around July 14, 2015.