2. Determination

A. In a criminal trial, the recognition of criminal facts ought to be based on strict evidence with probative value, which leads a judge to have a reasonable doubt, and in a case where the prosecutor’s proof does not reach the degree to have such conviction, the determination ought to be made in the interests of the defendant even if there are suspicions of guilt, such as inconsistency with the defendant’s assertion or defense or non-competence.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2015Do119 Decided May 14, 2015, etc.). B.

According to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, the fact that the defendant gets on the side of the damaged vehicle and gets on the bridge to the direction of the damaged vehicle, but the vehicle does not fall short of the vehicle, and the defendant gets on the back part of the lower part of the vehicle again, and immediately after that, the defendant gets on the back of the damaged vehicle, divided the conversation with the victim as soon as he discovered it.

In light of this, the defendant seems to have intentionally exercised the force of force by putting the back of the damaged vehicle rather than putting off against the damaged vehicle with the unsatisfed distance, as argued by the defendant.

C. However, as to whether the damaged vehicle was damaged by the Defendant’s above act, the witness E’s statement in this court and investigative agency, the evidence corresponding thereto, and the photograph and estimate on the damaged vehicle’s damaged vehicle’s damaged vehicle’s damaged vehicle’s damaged vehicle’s damaged vehicle’s damaged vehicle’s damaged vehicle’s damaged vehicle’s damaged vehicle’s damaged vehicle’s damage is difficult or recognized as such.