The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On November 25, 2015, the Defendant removed the entire building owned by the victim E, on the ground that part of the building owned by the victim E (a total area of 46.28 square meters) owned by the Defendant was constructed beyond the boundary of F, a land owned by the Defendant, on the ground that the Defendant was constructed beyond the boundary of F, in light of around 13:00 on November 25, 2015.

2. Determination

A. In a criminal trial, the conviction of guilt ought to be based on evidence of probative value, which leads a judge to the conviction that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt. If there is no evidence to form such a conviction, even if there is suspicion of guilt against the defendant, the determination is inevitable in the interests of the defendant.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, the evidence produced by the prosecutor alone was proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt as to the facts charged.

It is difficult to see, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

1) The fact that the ownership preservation registration was completed on June 18, 2008 in the name of the victim on the ground that the ownership preservation registration was completed on June 18, 2008 with respect to the 26.45 square meters and the 19.83 square meters of the Domain roof detached in the Do branch of the Do branch of the Do branch of the Do branch of the Do branch of the Do

However, he was the owner of land D, Gyeong-gun, Gyeong-nam

E filed a lawsuit against the victim for cancellation, etc. of the above registration on the ground that the above registration was completed without any title as well as that it was a building for which no actual existence exists (this Court Decision 2015 Ghana 3305), and on January 28, 2016, the conciliation that the victim would immediately cancel the above registration, etc. finalized in the criminal trial of this case, solely based on the above facts, was the actual existence of each of the above buildings and the owner thereof was the victim.

It is difficult to see it.

2) Rather, the building in dispute over the ownership relationship between the Defendant and the victim is located in F, Gyeongnam-gun.