The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The Defendant, from March 8, 2018 to December 12, 2018, set forth in the facts charged, in the dry field cultivated by the victim C, which was cultivated by the victim C from March 8, 2018, the market value of the victim, which was the victim’s debris, math, and the side, has undermined its utility.

Accordingly, the defendant damaged the property owned by the victim.

2. In a judgment of conviction in a criminal trial, the conviction should be based on evidence of probative value, which leads to a judge to have the conviction that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt, and if there is no evidence to form such a conviction, the doubt of guilt is against the defendant even if there is no evidence to establish such a conviction.

Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do5114, Jan. 27, 2004). C statements that the Defendant had hedging agricultural produce, but not witnessing the hedging of agricultural produce, but the Defendant was damaged by agricultural products after having been on his own house.

In light of the fact that the defendant or the defendant was able to contain soil on the water, it is insufficient to recognize that the defendant damaged agricultural products as stated in the facts charged.

In addition, on-site photographs are taken from about two weeks after the time of destruction of crops as stated in the facts charged, and such images are insufficient to recognize the fact that the defendant has damaged crops as shown in the facts charged, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge them.

Thus, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the court acquitted the defendant under the latter part of Article 325