The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

A. In fact, the Defendant did not destroy a contract for the establishment of the right to collateral security and power of attorney (hereinafter “instant document”) owned by the victim.

B. Legal doctrine-misunderstanding of the instant document was partially damaged because it was a document to be destroyed by losing the purpose of use.

Even if the document was made effective,

subsection (b) of this section.

As to the fact that the instant document was destroyed, G’s implied consent, which is the victim’s agent, was rejected, and thus, the Defendant is held liable for the reason that there is any justifiable reason to believe that the instant document was destroyed.

(c)

The punishment of the court below (700,000 won) which is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

Judgment on the misunderstanding of Facts

A. The Defendant, at around 09:00 on March 19, 2013, indicated as “F party F (agent G), a person holding a collateral security right, and a maximum amount of KRW 50,000,00,” in the E judicial scrivener office located in the E judicial scrivener office located in Da at 2013.3. 19, the charge reveals its usefulness by drinking out the part of the maximum amount of the claim column, which was prepared in advance for reasons of non-performance, and continuously releasing the power of proxy owned by F party F party F party F party F party F party F Party.

Accordingly, the Defendant destroyed the agreement on the establishment of the right to collateral security, which is owned by the victim F, and the document on the power of attorney.

B. The lower court determined that the Defendant’s statement from H and G, which the Defendant destroyed the instant documents, is consistent with the investigative agency to the court of the lower court’s trial.

On the other hand, the facts charged in this case were found guilty as evidence.

(c)

The statement of H presented by the court below as evidence of guilt was not directly viewed as "the defendant in this case's document, but the defendant was married to a certified judicial scrivener office at the time, and the document of this case.