However, evidence that can objectively verify whether the defendant was placed in the above date and whether there was a situation at the time is left, is only 19 parts of the investigation records (Evidence No. 2 attached to the complaint) among evidence photographs (Evidence No. 3).

However, the above evidence does not have any objective data to specify the date and time of photographing while the victim was taken by himself for the purpose of ex post facto responsibility of the defendant, or to confirm the situation at the time.

Although the victim testified to the effect that "at the time, she was able to pass along the surrounding area because she was set up in the Defendant's Track except the Defendant's Trackter, it cannot be viewed as a material concerning the circumstantial situation at the time of "the act of setting up the Defendant's Tracker" or "the act of setting up the Defendant's Tracker" as stated in the facts charged, all of the evidence Nos. 3, 4 (No. 20, 21) cited by the victim at the time different from the date and time stated in the facts charged (see, e.g., 10, 11 and 20 Hacker). As such, the facts charged (in particular, the date and time of the Defendant's act and the occurrence of a traffic impossible condition) cannot be recognized under the premise that the

In conclusion, this case constitutes a case where there is no proof of criminal facts and thus, the defendant is acquitted in accordance with the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the judgment is announced in accordance with Article 58 (2) of the