logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2018.06.01 2018고정289
재물손괴
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. Around 08:08 on June 12, 2017, the Defendant: (a) destroyed and damaged a vehicle (D) parked by the victim C in front of the parking lot B in Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government; (b) and (c) was flick to the lower bitle section from the siren C to the lower bitle section.

2. Determination

A. The burden of proving the facts charged in a criminal trial has the burden of proving the facts charged in the criminal trial, and the conviction should be based on the evidence of probative value that makes the judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is a doubt as to the defendant's guilt, the interest of the defendant should be judged even if there is a doubt as to the defendant (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do5662, Dec. 24, 2002, etc.). (b) Comprehensively considering the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly examined by the court, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone, without any reasonable doubt, proves that the vehicle of this case was destroyed by a imprisoned tool as stated in the facts charged by the defendant.

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

① Although the Defendant was in cleaning the parking lot parked from an investigative agency to this court, the Defendant consistently denied that the instant vehicle was not damaged by the noise and injury.

② Around 05:30 on June 12, 2017, the victim’s statement was parked in the instant vehicle in the parking lot. However, the victim’s statement is merely a damage that he/she was flickly flicked in the instant vehicle parked from a flick male at around 16:0 on the same day, and confirmed that he/she was flicked with the phone that he/she was flicked.

③ CCTV images, the head of which is confirmed by the Defendant’s side of the instant vehicle, are also in contact with the instant vehicle, and it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant’s flag is a flag for the instant vehicle.

(4) Doing of the surface of a vehicle shall be towing.

arrow