beta
Text
The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.
Reasons
On August 28, 2018, the Defendant: (a) was the owner of the Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government building D (hereinafter “D”) in the Criminal Police Station and the office of the Seoul Yongsan Police Station; and (b) was the owner of the Yongsan-gu Seoul Yongsan Building D (hereinafter “E”), and (c) had lawfully occupied the instant real estate from January 19, 200 to keep approximately KRW 300 million in the market price of the house, fixtures, documents, and revenue complete, and without permission, invaded on August 21, 2014; and (d) had arbitrarily removed approximately KRW 300 million in the complete for revenue kept in the public room from the public room to take it out; and (e) had been conducted by relocating the location of the house and equipment in the corporate register of Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, thereby interfering with the exercise of rights by the Plaintiff; and (e) had filed a criminal complaint with the same purport as the thief’s statement.
However, at the end of February 2011, the Defendant already released the office of the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. in the above subparagraph D, and around October 201, the Defendant brought to the toy to claim the continuation of possession of the above subparagraph D. Around the end of 2011 or around early 2012, the Defendant moved the above type to another place. Therefore, around August 21, 2014, he was well aware of the fact that Defendant B was not removed from the above type.
As a result, the defendant, who is the defendant, was arrested for the purpose of having the defendant B receive criminal punishment.
Judgment
The prosecutor specified the Defendant’s false accusation that “The Defendant filed a complaint with the effect that the Defendant was stolen, even though he did not have stolen the character B, which was kept in the custody of the Defendant No. D.
(Public Prosecutor’s Opinion dated August 30, 2019). Accordingly, the Defendant did not move the instant type to another place in the early 201 or in early 2012 by giving instructions to the employees of the management committee of disputes.
Then, I argue that ‘the matter' is.
The defendant, the main issue of the instant case, is the defendant.