The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Around October 2009, the Defendant: (a) at the temporary storage of the first floor underground in the construction site of Songpa-gu Seoul building C, Songpa-gu, Seoul; (b) at the victim D’s temporary storage, the victim 6.80m in diameter of the market value of the victim’s possession at that place; and (c) at the victim’s 30m radius of the market value of the victim’s possession, the victim D cut off one body line.

2. The facts charged of the instant case are that “the Defendant stolen the instant construction section (“D”) at a diameter of 30 meters in diameter on October 2009.”

In this regard, D stated in the complaint that “the defendant was on duty and worked for the defendant on October 2009, and there was no previous construction section (the three pages of the investigation record),” on July 25, 2016, that “the defendant stolen the instant construction section from October 2009 (the 15th page of the investigation record),” and on June 1, 2017, the victim stated in this court that “The last use of the instant construction section was around July 2009 and around November 2009 at the cross-examination of the prosecutor and his defense counsel.”

He stated that he was aware of the fact because he did not want to work in his country.

On the other hand, D had viewed that the Defendant had the instant construction section in around 2011, but did not make any objection against the Defendant, and filed a complaint on July 25, 2016, when the difference between the Defendant and the Defendant was aggravated in the course of resolving overdue wages to be paid to the Defendant.

According to the above facts, D only knew that D had no construction section of this case around October 2009 or around November 2009 of the same year, and it was proved without any reasonable doubt that D stolen the construction section of this case around October 2009, as shown in the facts charged.

In the meantime, if the Defendant stolen the instant construction section from July 2009 to October 11, 2009, it cannot be seen that the Defendant was indicted on October 11, 2016, the instant case is subject to prosecution on the ground that the statute of limitations has lapsed (if the Defendant stolen the instant construction section from around July 2009 to around October 11, 209, it is only subject to prosecution on the ground that the statute of limitations has lapsed).