All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal is as follows: ① the Defendants’ statement on the particulars of purchase of the Otoba in this case is not consistent; ② the Defendants’ statement on the time of delivery of the registration document of Otoba in this case is inconsistent; ③ Defendant A purchased the Otoba in this case and sold it to Defendant B on the following day; ④ Defendant B was not involved in the process of purchase of the Otoba in this case; ⑤ Defendant B was not involved in the process of purchasing the Otoba in this case; ⑤ Defendant A was found guilty of the facts charged, despite the departure of the Defendants and the point of occurrence of the accident in this case (in the vicinity of the Defendant’s dwelling room) about approximately 200 U.S., moving the Obaba truck from the point of departure of the Defendants and the point of occurrence of the accident in this case (in the vicinity of the Defendant’s dwelling room near the Defendant’s dwelling room) against the common sense; and ② the profits the Defendants could obtain from the accident in this case were deducted from the purchase cost of Obaba in a new part.

2. Determination

A. The lower court’s judgment 1) The burden of proving the facts charged in a criminal trial of the relevant legal doctrine lies with the prosecutor, and the conviction of the guilty ought to be based on the evidence with probative value, which makes the judge feel true enough to have no reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt as to the Defendant’s guilt, the judgment should be based on the benefit of the Defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1151, Jul. 22, 2010). However, the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court.