The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant, as a taxi engineer of C affiliated with C on October 18:1, 201, operated the victim F to E-si in front of Gangnam-gu Seoul, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, while driving the taxi into alleyway at the front of Gangnam-gu Seoul, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, and claimed the dispute with the victim as a vision.

The Defendant asserted 112-reported 19 points, 3 points, and 22,678,000 won at the 22,678,00 won in sight of solar 2, 3 points, and 22,00 won in front of the 112-reported taxi.

2. According to the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, the Defendant, as a E-si engineer, was on the date and place indicated in the facts charged, and arrived near the destination, and thereafter was on the time and place of arrival, and the F reported on the 112 return from the taxi. The Defendant, prior to the arrival of the police, was found to have left the taxi and left the taxi.

Furthermore, as seen above, it is difficult for the Defendant to consider whether there was an article listed in the facts charged on the back seat of the above taxi at the time of leaving the scene as above, and there was each statement at F’s investigative agency and this court as evidence corresponding thereto, but there is no objective and specific evidence supporting the victim’s statement, and the remainder of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize it. Even if there was a article on the back seat of the taxi at the time of the statement of domestic F’s statement, it is insufficient to consider whether the Defendant had the intention of larceny, and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize it, and in particular, the Defendant stated that there was no evidence that the Defendant has stolen or acquired the article in accordance with the consistent manner from the investigative agency to this court.