logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.01.11 2017고단7120
재물손괴
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. On July 31, 2017, the Defendant: (a) around 12:20 on July 31, 2017, the summary of the facts charged in the instant case: (b) accepted the two sides of the toilets in the dwelling area of Suwon-si, Suwon-si C and C and C and C and C with the third floor D (35:00) so that the Defendant visited the victim so that the husband of the victim can get out of water in a normal condition.

In addition, as a result of repair costs, the victim and the victim receive less repair costs than the amount presented by them due to the high arbitrity of the repair cost, he will use a toilet due to the locking of the door, and caused the trouble so that water can not be collected normally by putting the portable shampoo and shamper on the toilet top after locking the door, and then dump in a trouble so that water can not be cut normally.

2. Determination

A. The criminal defendant is presumed innocent until a judgment of conviction becomes final and conclusive (Article 27(4) of the Constitution, and Article 275-2 of the Criminal Procedure Act). The presumption of innocence is not only an investigation but also a large principle which leads criminal procedures and criminal trials to a whole until a judgment becomes final and conclusive, and is based on a long legal term, “the interest of the defendant, if doubtful,” which is the basis of our criminal law.

Article 307 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that "The recognition of facts constituting a crime should be proved to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt."

“.......”

Therefore, the conviction in a criminal trial should be based on evidence of probative value, which leads a judge to the conviction that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt.

In a case where the evidence submitted by a prosecutor alone does not reach such a level that leads to conviction, even if there are suspicions of guilt, determination should be made with the benefit of the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Do1405, Sept. 1, 1992; 200Do5395, Feb. 23, 2001; 2016Do21231, Oct. 31, 201). B. The following can be seen by the record.

arrow