The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On March 15, 2016, the Defendant embezzled the Defendant’s arbitrarily refused to return it to the victim, without delivering it to the victim, even though he/she received a telephone call and carried the door-to-door ship with a house with a face value equivalent to KRW 3.60,00 in the market price, and had the Defendant keep it for the victim at the convenience store D located in G with the wife population C, which is located in the wife population at Chicago-si around 17:11.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the evidence submitted by the Defendant, on March 15, 2016, including the recording files of the witness E’s statement and the police interrogation records, CCTV screen images, and F-written evidence of the witness E in the second public trial records, E requested the Defendant to find out the door-to-door distribution at the D convenience store, and E had many of the home-to-door distributions to be received by the Defendant at the time, and the Defendant did not say that the content of the home-to-door distribution was a physical exercise.

In fact, the article argues that E had the door-to-door store store distribution, and then had the phone call from the D convenience store to the defendant. After that, the defendant found the goods seen as the door-to-door delivery from the D convenience store, E followed the door-to-door store distribution that was completed by the mobile phone, but there was no movementation, and D convenience store did not have the door-to-door store distribution.

In fact, it can be recognized that it is not possible to find out a gratical distribution in currency with the gratical engineer on the following day of this case.

B. We cannot believe that the statements of lives, E fall short of consistency, and they were stated as the relationship between the Defendant and the private relationship, which is not the relationship between the Defendant and the private relationship, and there are no objective data supporting the fact that there are several parcels of door-to-doors on the day.

Therefore, the statement of E cannot be recognized that E was not subject to a physical exercise.

Recognizing the statement of Professor E and E, E was not subject to a physical exercise

Recognizing that according to the E’s statement, there have been a number of products to receive the day.

(f) CCTV images.