절도
The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.
1. The Defendant is a person who resides on the five-story apartment, such as the victim C (27 tax).
On November 2, 2016, the Defendant: (a) committed a theft by taking advantage of a crepan in front of the victim’s house 107-dong 104, the victim’s house 104-dong 107-dong 104, the Defendant used a crepan in which there was approximately KRW 70,000 of the market price of the Defendant’s house 70,000-dong 10-dong 104, the Defendant’s house 200-dong 19:0.
2. The Defendant asserted that he had an empty house stuffed in front of the victim’s door-to-door stuff and left it at the apartment garbage site. However, the Defendant did not have a debt, which is the content of the door-to-door stuff, as stated in the facts charged, as in the facts charged.
The argument is asserted.
3. Among the evidence submitted by the judgment prosecutor, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant left the door-to-door stay in front of the victim's door without the victim's consent, beyond the fact that he/she left the door-to-door stay in front of the victim's door-to-door stay.
In other words, according to the victim C's statement at the investigative agency and court of the victim C, the contents of telephone conversations with E's investigative agency, related photographs, and the screen screen of cutting down the CCTV images on the garbage site, etc. on November 2, 2016, the fact that the door-to-door gambling was delivered in front of the victim's door-to-door, and later the defendant left the door-door gambling on the same day, and the fact that the defendant left the apartment garbage site around 19:09 on the same day. However, the above circumstance alone is insufficient to recognize the defendant's act of theft against the debt, which is the content of the victim's door-to-door gambling, as alleged by the defendant, while it was not possible to completely eliminate the possibility that there was no new debt, which is a content in front of the victim's door-to-door box, as argued by the defendant.
I would like to say.
All the remaining evidences are related to the transfer of possession of door-to-door gambling, and thus, they are included in the above facts charged.