The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

At around 23:50 on October 14, 2013, the Defendant discovered the Victim C, who was under influence of alcohol on the street in front of the ‘B in a customary market' located at ancient cities, and approach the victim's rear side to the latter, knife the part of the victim's inside by hand, and knife the victim's inside, and knife the victim's knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife kn

2. Determination

A. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that there is only a fact that the defendant spawns the victim with the time and time stated in the facts charged, and that there is no fact that the defendant forcibly takes the victim's spawn.

B. The burden of proof for the facts charged in a criminal trial is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction of guilt is to be based on the evidence with probative value that makes a judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt as to the defendant's guilt, the interest of the defendant should be determined even if there is a doubt as to the defendant's guilt (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Do2823, Aug. 21, 2001). The jurors issued a verdict of innocence only with respect to the facts charged in the instant case.

D. The evidence as shown in the facts charged of the instant case includes C and D’s investigative agencies, legal statements, CCTV image CDs, etc. However, in light of the following circumstances revealed by the records of the instant case, it is difficult to view that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone leads to the jury’s verdict and that the Defendant was proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt as to the fact that the Defendant took the victim’s net scam, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

1) First of all, the victim’s statement was made to the effect that one person was behind the victim’s statement at an investigative agency, and that the victim took a gold boom that he was faced with the victim’s face one time and did not take the victim’s face one time. However, in this court, the victim did not take the victim’s face at that time, and that the defendant did not take his face at that time, and that he did not take the victim’s face, and that he would not take the victim’s seat at that time, and that the victim could not take the victim’s seat at that time in light of the fact that the victim could not have taken the victim’s seat at that time when the victim’s statement was made, the victim could not be seen to have taken the victim’s seat at that time, and that the victim could not have taken the victim’s seat at that time when the victim’s statement was made. In light of the victim’s body and the fact that the victim could not have taken the victim’s seat at that time, the victim did not have taken the victim’s seat at that time and the victim’s seat at that time.

2) Next, in light of the health stand, D’s investigative agency and legal statement, and communication data notification as to D’s statement, the Defendant visited D’s house around 01:00 on October 15, 2013 to show D’s shouldering. However, in light of D’s statement that the Defendant had previously carried a shouldering, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant’s shouldering to D’s temporary border is a gold pool taken by the victim.

3) In the case of CCTV CDs, the fact that a person who is presumed to be a criminal in the above CCTV image carries the part of the victim’s timber and damages the victim’s timber can be confirmed. However, it is difficult to readily conclude that the person presumed to be a criminal in the above CCTV image alone is the defendant. In addition, in the above CCTV image, the fact that the victim was forcibly boomed because the person presumed to be a criminal in the above CCTV is unable to confirm the face of the gold boom or the strong gold boom with the victim’s strong booming from the scene, and it is difficult to recognize the fact that the victim was forced to go away from the scene (On the other hand, the investigation report (Attachment of the CCTV image CD) states that the CCTV image was accompanied by the above CCTV image, which appears to be carried by the victim’s breath by booming the breath to the rear hand, but the above CCTV image was not accompanied by the above CCTV image.

4) Although there are parts contrary to the notice of communications data, which is an objective material, among the contents of the Defendant’s lawsuit, and there are parts inconsistent with each other, even if the change of the Defendant’s lawsuit is unreasonable and false, it cannot be disadvantageous to the Defendant, and criminal facts should be proven by a judge to have high probability that there is no reasonable doubt.

3. Conclusion

Since the facts charged in the instant case constitute a case where there is no proof of a crime, it shall be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it shall be decided as per Disposition by publicly announcing the summary of the judgment pursuant to Article 58

Jurors's verdict

○ A verdict of guilty or not guilty: Opinions of not guilty on nine unanimouss of jurors.

Judges Lee Dong-ho

Judges Kang Han-chul