The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant was a director of (ju)B (Representative C) B (Representative C) and the victim of D’s operation (ju) E was unable to receive the construction cost even after completion of the civil engineering work among the new construction works for factory storage in the F of Pakistan, and was able to compulsorily remove the right of retention when having installed the container two boxes, signs, safety fences, etc. at the above site.

On August 19, 2017, at the construction site of the above factory warehouse, the Defendant: (a) moved the two dong of the above container into force by cickers; (b) destroyed the said container and the computer, etc. contained in the said container; and (c) destroyed the signboard, safety fences, etc. by breaking them, the Defendant damaged the containers, computers, monitors, air conditioners, air conditioners, signs, safety fences, etc., which are owned by the victim company equivalent to KRW 5,520,00 in the market price.

2. As to whether the defendant directly or by the direction of the defendant damaged the victim's property as stated in the facts charged, there is a statement at the D or G police as witness, and as evidence corresponding thereto.

However, in this court, D knew that the parties to the LAB had engaged in the act of moving containers using clers, and it was naturally ordered by the defendant because he was only the defendant. However, it is stated that D's act of moving containers was not the KAB but the HAB. Thus, it is difficult to believe D's statement in the police as it is because it is merely a conjecture.

In addition, G also states to the effect that the police moved the contact with the Defendant using cream, but only states that the specific contents of G is delegated to D, and there is no specific content about the specific circumstances that the Defendant instructed cream work.