However, the following circumstances recognized by this court based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, namely, ① the defendant brought about a certified vinyl paper as stated in the facts charged; ② the defendant does not deny it; ② the defendant asserts that he confused with his own goods; ② the defendant purchased clothes seven times from May 25, 2019 to July 41, 201, using his credit card, etc. in the vicinity of the building B; ③ the defendant purchased his own diskettes at the time indicated in the facts charged and brought about a certified vinyl paper as indicated in the facts charged; ④ the defendant purchased the above goods at the time indicated in the facts charged; ④ the Defendant was included in several plastic bags; ⑤ although the Defendant was a plastic paper, the color of the plastic paper was very important in daily life, and thus it is difficult to criticize the defendant. In full view of the fact that the defendant should have known the difference.

However, the possibility that he/she saw him/herself as his/her own time and her saw him/ her as a plastic paper for examination as stated in the facts charged.

Therefore, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to admit that the facts charged were proven without any reasonable doubt, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

In conclusion, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus the defendant is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.