However, on the ground that C was not able to obtain a loan due to an occurrence of gambling, there was a dispute against C.

From 15:50 to 16:10 on the same day, the Defendant got drinking at the house of the Defendant located in the previous North Korea, and returned to a nearby restaurant. However, there is no way to live in the house and it is difficult for the Defendant to live economicly due to gambling and any other stuffing the house without any word by the wife C, and the Defendant was able to extinguish the house by putting the house in a timely fashion, and putting the house into fire by spreading it on the entrance, surrounding and on the floor, etc., which are large fuel flown fuel in the past.

Accordingly, the Defendant destroyed the house of the above Defendant, which is the first floor slve house used by wife C, etc. as a residence.

2. Determination

A. The burden of proving the facts charged in a criminal trial is to be borne by a public prosecutor, and the conviction of guilt is to be based on the evidence with probative value sufficient for a judge to have the truth that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt of guilt against the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do6110, Feb. 11, 2003). B. In light of the above legal principles, considering the following circumstances, the evidence submitted by the public prosecutor alone is sufficiently proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt.

It is difficult to see, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

1) The Defendant is from the police to this court.