beta
Text
The defendant shall be innocent.
Reasons
1. Around January 21, 2016, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement on the first floor of the building owned by the victim in Kangwon-gun, Gangwon-gun, with the content that the lease period of KRW 2 years and the deposit amount of KRW 10 million was concluded. Around January 21, 2016, the Defendant added a special agreement to return the main house at the expiration of the said contract period.
The Defendant, while operating a restaurant on the first floor of the above building, was in the custody of a collection machine, such as a large air conditioning room, a liquor air conditioning room, four large TV string, a large petroleum string, approximately 36 strings, a water reservoir, a string, a string, a string, a strings, a strings, and a strings, etc., on May 18, 2016, sold all of the said strings to D (E) and embezzled the said strings.
2. Determination
A. The burden of proof of the facts charged in a criminal trial of the relevant legal doctrine is to be borne by the prosecutor, and the conviction is to be based on the evidence with probative value that makes the judge feel true enough to have no reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, the doubt of guilt against the defendant even if there is no such evidence.
Even if the interests of the defendant cannot be determined by the interests of the defendant
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do14487, Apr. 28, 2011). B.
Judgment
The following circumstances acknowledged in accordance with the records of this case, namely, the defendant delivered 4.5 million won to the investigative agency to the victim and received 4.5 million won as a check, and consistently stated to the effect that the defendant prepared a separate document to this effect. On the other hand, F (the victim's husband appears to have entered into a lease contract with the defendant on behalf of the victim) stated that the investigative agency did not receive 4.5 million won as premium, etc. from the victim except for 10 million won. However, the defendant stated that it did not receive 4.5 million won as premium, etc.