The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged: (a) from around 01:30 on October 6, 2017 to around 01:50, the Defendant found the guard room up to 13 entrance rooms up to C, west-si, west-si, west-si; (b) on the ground that the victim D does not open the door of the guard room, the telephone gate, which was administered by the victim, was cut down to the victim’s face; and (c) the phone gate was cut off to the floor.

In this respect, the defendant damaged the property in the city.

2. The Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion was a fact that they had a telephone device sealed on the seat of the guard room, but did not have the telephone device broken down on the floor so that they could be broken away from the floor.

3. In a criminal trial, the burden of proving the facts constituting an offense charged in the criminal trial is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction should be based on evidence with probative value sufficient for the judge to prove that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt as to the defendant's guilt, it shall be determined in the interests of the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1151, Jul. 22, 2010). Meanwhile, in the crime of property damage, the crime of property damage constitutes not only cases where the crime of property damage takes place in a state where the original purpose of the goods cannot be served due to material destruction but also cases where the specific role of the goods cannot be served temporarily (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 82Do1057, Jul. 13, 1982). The evidence duly adopted by the court and the following facts can still be proven as to the original purpose of the telephone or the defendant's act.

shall not be deemed to exist.

(a) D with respect to physical damage, at the time of the police statement, “one cost of internal telephone.”