beta
Text
The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.
Reasons
1. On November 24, 2012, the Defendant: (a) around 04:16, at E Convenience stores located in Jeju-si, the Defendant entered the said convenience store by putting his/her employees F (n, 58 years of age) into the convenience store with a view to taking property by taking the convenience store; and (b) inserting his/her face to his/her mother and make with the face of his/her mother and make, with a stone (8cm x 13cm above).
The Defendant continued to set 1 cans and coffees which were in the cooling place above the above convenience point calculation unit as if the Defendant calculated the franchising, and franchising the franchis in advance possessed by the victim, and franchising the 3-4 parts of the franchis and left side side of the victim, and tried to force the victim to take money after suppressing the victim’s resistance, but she did not go through the wind to resist the victim’s resistance.
As a result, the defendant strongly withdrawn the victim's property, and the defendant laid down the victim's property to the attempted crime, and put about a simple heat on the left side which requires treatment for about one week.
2. The gist of the Defendant’s legal action is that the Defendant did not memory the facts charged in this case and did not commit such a crime. Even if the Defendant committed the instant crime, the Defendant was in a state of mental disorder or mental disorder.
3. Determination
A. The burden of proving the criminal facts prosecuted in a criminal trial is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction of guilt is to be based on the evidence of probative value that leads a judge to the conviction that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, the suspicion of guilt is between the defendant, even if there is no such evidence.
Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Do2823, Aug. 21, 2001). Moreover, prosecutor’s proof leads to such conviction.