beta
Text
The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.
Reasons
1. On March 1, 2015, the Defendant: (a) committed a theft by putting the victim E-owned legs, rubber lines, one steel bars, etc. located near the outer warehouse of the “D factory located in Namyang-si, Namyang-si; and (b) by using them as a method of cutting off the market value.
2. Determination
A. In a criminal trial, the establishment of a crime must be based on strict evidence with probative value, which leads a judge to a reasonable doubt. Thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof does not sufficiently reach the degree of conviction, the determination should be based on the defendant’s benefit even if there is a suspicion of guilt.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Do14487 Decided April 28, 2011). B.
There is a statement of the victim as a major evidence supporting the above facts charged.
However, it is difficult to believe that the statements by the victim are not consistent in terms of the time and circumstances when they become aware of the damage or damage.
(The statement at the victim's investigative agency is merely a report of 112 with the knowledge that the defendant brought about his house at the time of fire and later brought about the house string, etc. according to the conciliation in civil procedure, and later, it is difficult to recognize that the defendant stolen the above house string, etc. It is difficult to recognize that the victim committed a theft of the above house string. Furthermore, the victim thought that the defendant was not the defendant at the time of this court's testimony but the person working on the site at the time of the time when he testified. However, it was stated that the defendant did not properly manage the site, or that the police made a statement to the effect that the defendant brought about F by telephone to the factory owner F at the time of the fire. Furthermore, the witness G's statement, who was a police officer dispatched to the site at the time, and all taken pictures taken at that time, are insufficient as credibility.