2. In a judgment of conviction in a criminal trial, the conviction shall be based on evidence of probative value, which is sufficient to confluence that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt, and if there is no such proof, the conviction cannot be rendered even if there is a suspicion of guilt against the Defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do8675, Mar. 9, 2006). In addition, there is a statement at the police and court of the victimized person as evidence consistent with the facts charged in the instant case.

However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, namely, the victim: “On the day of the instant case, the Defendant, G, and D destroyed the victim’s door door by generating and drinking the victim’s door door, and requested the Korean-friendly relationship to assist him/her, and reported it to 112.

At the time, the victim was taken by the cell phone camera in order to confirm the situation of the entrance door and the situation through the cellphone image, and to remain as evidence.

However, according to the video taken by the injured party, the image at the time of the instant case can be confirmed when the damaged party saw D’s sound and reads the door in a incombustible material, but it does not seem to have been damaged by opening the door of the accused or G, etc. In this court, the witness G was damaged by the Defendant, witness, D, and HIJ 4 drinking at the Defendant’s home, and playing d’s front door door of the victim’s house, which is the Defendant’s next house. However, the witness G was destroyed by the Defendant, witness, D, and H IJ 4 drinking at the Defendant’s home.