beta
Text
The defendant shall be innocent.
Reasons
1. The summary of the facts charged was around 23:50 on January 28, 2014, the Defendant: (a) was drunk on the street in front of the Samdang apartment apartment located in Daegu Jung-gu, 447-1, 72-1, and was parked there without any justifiable reason; and (b) was damaged by putting the main unit of the vehicle owned by the victim C and the left-hand door of the vehicle repair cost of KRW 560,602.
2. Determination:
(a) For the crime of destroying and damaging property, the term "damage" means the destruction or loss of the original utility by directly exercising the power of force on all or part of the goods, etc., and thereby causing a physical damage to the material or body;
B. According to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court (the witness E’s legal statement, written statement of C, investigation report (related to the attachment of evidentiary video CDs), photograph, CD), the defendant can only recognize the fact that the defendant has taken the left-hand glass of the driver’s seat and the rear seat of the driver’s seat as stated in the facts charged, and there is no other evidence to prove that the defendant has taken the main unit of the above vehicle by hand.
Furthermore, there is a written statement and a written estimate of C as evidence that corresponds to the damage of the above vehicle to the health stand and the fact that the above vehicle has damaged the utility of the above vehicle glass. According to the written statement of C, "(A) parts of the main unit unit and the adjacent parts of the vehicle, and the driver's seat and the front door have been cut off, and the driver's seat and the front door have been damaged." ② According to the written estimate, "afterward, the part was damaged, and the expenses required for the printing, surging, and painting are KRW 560,602, and even according to the above evidence, the damaged part of the above vehicle cannot be recognized as the front and rear glass of the above vehicle that the defendant uses tangible power, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant has the utility of the above vehicle."