Prosecutor’s “I do not do so directly or directly.”

“A person who asked him,” and the Defendant need not, “I do so.”

“The answer was made.”

In this context, the prosecutor’s “the electrical ship was well known as one of the electrical ships, but from the victim’s perspective at which the instant issue was addressed, whether the prosecutor’s “I am only to what extent the Defendant (C) was examined.”

The Defendant asked her finhere, “I do not finhere a finite,” and the Defendant does not have her finhere in this finite, and there is no finite finite.

“The answer was made.”

However, on September 8, 2014, the Defendant had been well aware of the electric power line of the laundry room connected to the electric distribution of No. 102, which D leased and used by D, according to C’s instructions.

The Defendant testified differently from his memory and raised perjury.

Judgment

From the beginning, the Defendant: (a) opened the electric distribution system with C’s request after recognizing the electric power distribution system; and (b) consistently said that the electric power line without finding any electric power system was connected to one of the cut electric lines.

First of all the evidence, D's speech was confined to the Defendant's distribution with C when looking at closed circuits (CCTV). Around that time, electricity line was cut.

Although it can be a basis, it is not a direct evidence.

However, if you look at the video, it is like that the defendant gets together with C to open up about 30 minutes a cover of the distribution, and that he gets electricity lines over half of them.

It seems that it is rather a series of electricity rather than cut electricity lines.

Videos have been argued by the Defendant (a cut electric power line was short) rather than the facts charged, and it was difficult to link the videos with it.

was made)

(b).