The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

A. The defendant asserts that the judgment of the court below that the defendant committed a theft by citing the equipment owned by the victim was erroneous and adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment, even though he did not return the equipment used by himself to the head of the tools, and did not return the stolen equipment owned by the victim.

B. The Defendant asserts that the lower court’s punishment (two million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. ex officio determination of authority: (a) the prosecutor applied for the amendment of a bill of amendment to the indictment with the withdrawal of “two Eas” among the facts charged at the trial court; and (b) the subject of this court’s permission was changed by this court; (c) the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.

However, even if there are such reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court within the scope of determining the changed facts charged, and this is examined in

B. On July 20, 2012, the Defendant, at around 16:00, was guilty of the facts charged prior to the alteration, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged prior to the alteration, by taking advantage of the gaps in the E-site office located in Da, Jin-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, in which the surveillance of the victim F (the age of 43) was neglected, and by taking advantage of the gap in the surveillance of the victim F (the age of 43), the equipment owned by the victim, the sum of KRW 50,000,000, and KRW 500,000.

3) In a criminal trial, the recognition of facts constituting an offense should be based on strict evidence with probative value, which makes a judge not to have any reasonable doubt. Thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof does not sufficiently reach the degree of confiscing such conviction, even if the defendant’s assertion or defense is contradictory or uncomponed, and there is suspicion of guilt, such as the defendant’s non-confiscence.