logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 밀양지원 2018.07.05 2017고정225
재물손괴
Text

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

Reasons

1. In the facts charged, the Defendant: (a) extracted 10 gran tree owned by the victim D and 10 gone gin tree totaling KRW 2,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

2. Determination

A. In a criminal trial, the conviction of guilt ought to be based on evidence of probative value, which leads a judge to the conviction that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt. If there is no evidence to form such a conviction, even if there is suspicion of guilt against the defendant, the determination is inevitable in the interests of the defendant.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, the tree was planted at the time and place indicated in the facts charged.

Therefore, it is difficult to see that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone proves that the facts charged premised on such evidence are beyond reasonable doubt.

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

1) There was D’s statements on the facts that there was such tree as the date and place indicated in the facts charged. However, the 30 to 40-year tree at the time of filing a criminal complaint with respect to the tree which was the lower court, but when the police statement was made (the 6th page of the evidence record), the 2-3m tree at the height of the 2-3m tree (the 33th page of the evidence record) and the 1 week of the Republic of Korea, one week from the military court.

At the same time, it is difficult to believe D’s statement in light of the circumstances (Evidence No. 85 pages) stated as around July 2014 to August 2014 when it was confirmed that trees were extracted in winter in 2016 and that there was the last tree.

2) As to the facts charged, the Defendant only extracted 3 to 4 miscellaneous trees with a height of 1 to 2 meters from the daylights indicated in the facts charged, and the same as the Defendant asserts.

arrow