Judgment

Although there is a statement of E as evidence corresponding to the facts charged, it is difficult to believe E's statement as it is in full view of the following.

In addition, CCTV images are admitted as evidence, but it is difficult to confirm the location to acknowledge the facts charged (the white objects revealed in the image are highly likely to be the mobile phone size of the Defendant, and E itself cannot eliminate the possibility that he/she would have reduced his/her body card, etc. (see, e.g., images revealed after the fourth 40 minutes and images revealed at the fourth 20 seconds)), and there is no other sufficient evidence to acknowledge the facts charged.

① The E does not have dancing while facing the Defendant’s front before, but rather has dancing the same direction, and the Defendant did not take the e-mail card and resident registration certificate by inserting his hand in his own Cheongbro.

Habre Habk

However, E's height is about 180 cm and the defendant has a significant difference about 152 cm, and E's position is about the chest height of the defendant's chest, and it is difficult in reality to put the defendant's hand into E's Cheongba which is back to the afterma while dancing as above and back the arms.

I seem to appear.

(2) E deemed that the defendant was placed toward the chest of the defendant after taking the cream card, etc. on the day of the instant case.

However, it is difficult to believe that the statement is inconsistent because it is not consistent after the statement after checking CCTV images.

Thus, the facts charged of this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.