2. Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion

A. While the Defendant and his defense counsel have brought about one gold scrap with permission from the victim on August 8, 2016, the Defendant and his defense counsel did not commit a theft against the victim’s will, the Defendant and the defense counsel denied the instant facts charged to the effect that “the Defendant did not have any factual background.”

B. On the other hand, the victim was obvious of having been raped from an string person on August 8, 2016, and the Defendant was scamd, and the victim was scamd against the Defendant for a short period of time (5 to 10 minutes) from the house to display scams.

The Defendant returned back to her, but was on a wall in the Handbag, due to the following day.

There was no 500,000 won and gold scrap.

At the time of facing the vehicle, there has been a face-to-kick toilet, and at that time, the defendant stated that he would bring about 500,000 won and gold scrap.

3. Determination

A. The facts charged in a criminal trial must be proved by the prosecutor, and the judge should admit the defendant guilty with evidence having probative value, which leads to the conviction that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt as to the defendant's guilt, it is inevitable to determine the defendant's interest (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do767, Apr. 15, 2005). (b) According to the records of this case, the defendant: (a) under the influence of alcohol in Suwon-gu EF (hereinafter "the convenience store of this case") around August 8, 2016, the victim who visited the convenience store of this case under the influence of alcohol.