절도
The defendant shall disclose the summary of the judgment of innocence against the defendant.
1. Around January 5, 2015, the Defendant purchased 50 gym trees in the land of the land of the F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, E, andO (F, G, I, K, M, N, andO) from Seopo-si, Seopo-si, Seopo-si, Seopo-si, Ma. Around January 26, 2015, the Defendant purchased 20 gym trees in the above land additionally, and obtained designation of gym trees to be excavated from the above D.
On February 2, 2015, the Defendant: (a) had Roman, who was employed by him, excavateed out galk trees purchased from the above D; (b) had 10 galk trees out of approximately five million in the market value of the victim R owned by the victim of the land planted in P and Q in the vicinity of the above land without permission.
As a result, the Defendant stolen 10 gyms, which are property owned by the victim.
2. In a criminal trial, the conviction in a judgment of conviction ought to be based on evidence with probative value, which leads to the judge to confluence 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, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do10096, Jun. 25, 2009). The defendant purchased cogs trees from D around January 2015 to Egresponding from D to Egresponding from Egrespo City from Egresponding City to Egresponding City, and only owned by the victim and gresponding trees were designated as D at the time, and the defendant was aware of gresponding from D to Egresponding land purchased from D, so there was no intention to commit larceny.
The instant facts charged are consistently denied while consistently stated.
On December 18, 2014 and January 9, 2015, the following circumstances acknowledged by the record, i.e., D purchased 24 million won in total from S and then sold it again to the Defendant. D.