The Defendant, who was in dispute with the victim as to whether the said vehicle was damaged or damaged, sold the string of the said vehicle to the left drinking, caused the string of the said vehicle to be defective in the string, and damaged the string of the string to KRW 2,200,000 at the repair cost.

2. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the records of this case, the burden of proving the facts charged in a criminal trial and the prosecutor bears the burden of proving the facts charged in a criminal trial, and the conviction should be based on the evidence with probative value sufficient to have a judge conclude 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 2002Do5662, Dec. 24, 2002). Comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances acknowledged by the records of this case, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone either prices the vehicle left, as stated in the facts charged, or caused the above price act of the defendant by the above act of the defendant, and it was proved without reasonable doubt that there was a lack of evidence that the motor vehicle was damaged.

It is insufficient to view it, and there is no other evidence to prove it.

A. The Defendant, from an investigative agency to this court, was faced with the instant vehicle on the part of the victim (hereinafter “the first shock”) while standing on the side of the instant vehicle owned by the victim. However, there was a dispute with the victim.