The defendant shall be innocent.

On January 31, 2018, between around 00:35, the Defendant: (a) around 00:00 to around 01:28, the Defendant: (b) operated the Defendant’s “Cinging room room” on the fourth floor of the Asan City B building (hereinafter “instant building”); (c) was equipped with a wind line signboard that used to run a business by turning on the “D” restaurant located on the second floor of the instant building; and (d) was equipped with lighting entering the entrance of the building; and (e) was aware that there is a human being on the instant building, the Defendant, despite being aware of the existence of the person in the instant building, destroyed the instant singing room by putting it out by an irregular medium on the part of the instant singing room No. 1

Accordingly, the defendant destroyed a building in which people exist by setting fire.

The defendant and the defense counsel's arguments did not go against the above singing room operated by the defendant.

Judgment

The recognition of facts constituting an offense in the relevant legal doctrine criminal trial ought to be based on strict evidence with probative value, which makes a judge not to have any reasonable doubt. Thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof does not reach the extent that the prosecutor’s convictions could not lead to such a conviction, even if there are circumstances, such as the defendant’s assertion or defense contradictory or uncomfortable fear of guilt should be determined based on the defendant’s benefit.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2012Do231 Decided June 28, 2012, etc.). Meanwhile, even in a case of a crime, the statutory penalty for which is heavier, may be found guilty only by indirect evidence without direct evidence. However, even in such a case, there is sufficient proof to the extent that the recognition of indirect facts constituting the premise of a major fact does not allow any reasonable doubt, and one of such indirect facts must not be contradictory and contradictory to each other, and should not be supported by logical, empirical, and scientific rules as well as logical

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do10895, Dec. 9, 2010). Therefore, the conviction leads to the motive of crime, the choice of the means of crime, and the crime.