When the evidence is circumstantial, does the Court have to accept logical inferences that the jury might have drawn from the evidence?

When the evidence is circumstantial, "'[w]e 'must accept logical inferences that the jury might have drawn from the circumstantial evidence.' 'Although it is the jury's duty to acquit a defendant if it finds the circumstantial evidence susceptible of two reasonable interpretations, one of which suggests guilt and the other innocence, it is the jury, not the appellate court that must be convinced of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.' Where the circumstances reasonably justify the trier of fact's findings, a reviewing court's conclusion the circumstances might also reasonably be reconciled with a contrary finding does not warrant the judgment's reversal."'" (People v. Manibusan (2013) 58 Cal.4th 40, 87 [citations omitted].)

Page 5