The defendant is not guilty, and the summary of the judgment of innocence is publicly notified.

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant, from September 201 to October 10 of the same year, was likely to cause damage to the Defendant’s housing and farmland during the first half of the same year, resulting in the Defendant’s damage to standing timber worth KRW 169,00,00 by cutting down 20 square meters of standing timber (refinite 2.45 square meters) born in the south-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Chungcheongnam-gu C forest without the consent of the owner of forest.

2. The defendant's assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the assertion is that the Defendant did not deviate from the standing timber coats and denies the facts charged.

B. On the other hand, the evidence that corresponds to the facts charged in the instant case is inadmissible for the following reasons, or is insufficient to use it as evidence of guilt, and there is no other evidence.

1) First of all, the protocol of interrogation of the accused in preparation of the assistant judicial police officer stated in this court that the accused denies its contents, and thus, it is not admissible as evidence since the witness D stated in this court that "the accused made a confession of the facts of crime in a net order." However, this is merely a statement of the assistant judicial police officer who investigated the accused, so long as the accused denies the crime differently from the statement before the assistant judicial police officer, it is not admissible as long as the accused denies the crime. Furthermore, the Criminal Procedure Act has a provision that exceptionally recognizes the admissibility of evidence only in cases where the defendant takes the form of simple medical specialist as prescribed in Article 316 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and there is no provision that acknowledges the admissibility of the statement again. Thus, it is not admissible as evidence under Article 310-2 of the

Therefore, among the testimony of the above witness D, the statement to the effect that "the reporter E transferred his opinion that he exceeded the tree coats" is merely a re-specialized statement and thus inadmissible as evidence.

Finally, 3.