The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On February 2010, the Defendant maintained the utility of water pipelines owned by the victim by cutting water pipes connected to the victim D owned by 502 via 501, from the Defendant’s residence at the 501st place of the Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, 501.

2. In a judgment, the burden of proof for the criminal facts prosecuted in a criminal trial is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction of guilt is to be based on evidence with probative value that makes the judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt (Article 307(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act). If there is no such evidence, even if there is a suspicion of guilt against the defendant, it is inevitable to determine the benefit of the defendant.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do9890, Feb. 12, 2009). The Defendant asserted that, as a construction business operator, E takes charge of the instant pipeline, and that, only cut off the instant pipeline, E did not intentionally cut the water pipeline connected to the 502 unit of the C building owned by the victim D.

On the other hand, F's statements and legal statements are made in F's investigative agencies as evidence that seem to correspond to the facts charged in the instant case.

The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, namely, the F, a resident of the Cbuilding 502, stated that “If the F, in the police station, had known the water supply pipe well, would have connected the water supply pipe to the Defendant at the time of the request. However, if the Defendant did not know the water supply pipe well, the F’s statement to the effect that the Defendant intentionally did not know the water supply pipe, is merely a conjecture, and that the E directly cut off the water supply pipe cuts the water supply of this case in this court.”