재물손괴
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. Around 10:00 on October 20, 2015, the Defendant removed the house owned by himself/herself in Seongbuk-gu Seoul, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul, and removed the wall fence of the house owned by himself/herself and then removed the wall fence of the adjacent victim D (n, 80 years old) from the adjacent victim D (n, n, 80 years old) by an irregular method, thereby impairing its utility by destroying the wall fence that is owned by a victim of the market price.
2. Determination
A. In a criminal trial, the establishment of a criminal facts ought to be based on strict evidence with probative value, which leads a judge to have a reasonable doubt, and thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof does not sufficiently reach the extent that such convictions are to be ensured, the determination should be made in the interests of the defendant even if there is suspicion of guilt, such as the defendant’s assertion or defense contradictory or uncomfortable dismissal.
B. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone that the Defendant had the intent to damage the victim.
It is difficult to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to recognize it.
1) The victim D was present as a witness in this court and stated that “only the sound to remove the brick, and did not directly witness the luminous light to remove the brick.”
2) E, which directly performed the instant construction under the contract with the Defendant, stated to the effect that “I did not obtain prior instructions from the Defendant to remove the vegetable rice plants at issue, and that I removed the vegetable rice plants at the time due to the risk of breaking the vegetable rice plants without removing the said vegetable rice plants at that time, etc., by personal judgment.”
3. In conclusion, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of facts constituting a crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted by the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the defendant consents to the public notice of acquittal judgment.