beta
Text
The defendant shall be innocent.
Reasons
1. The summary of the facts charged is the representative of the Si event that performed the construction work for the construction of the Nice Site in Gwangju City from August 2014 to August 2017, 201, for the F apartment site construction of approximately 400 square meters for the total site of approximately 400 square meters, including Gwangju City D and E (hereinafter “instant construction work”). The Defendant is the representative of the Si event that performed the construction work for the construction of the Nice Site in Gwangju City from around 2009 to December 2010.
The Defendant, from August 2014 to August 2017, the victim, who had been engaged in the construction and management of the construction site of the apartment site of Gwangju City, Jeju City from around August 2014 to around August 2017, did not interfere with the victim’s construction and management work by force on the relevant land, on the ground that the victim’s failure to neglect on the relevant land is not likely to cause damage to the apartment construction work, even though the victim requested several times to keep the obstacles to the apartment construction work due to water owned by the Defendant, which was left in Gwangju City, and caused the obstruction to the apartment construction work of the victim.
2. In the judgment criminal procedure, the prosecutor shall present the evidence that there is a criminal fact.
The defendant's legal action is unreasonable and false.
Even if so, it can not be disadvantageous to the defendant.
Criminal facts should be proved by a judge to have high probability to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt.
If there is no evidence to form such a conviction, even if there is suspicion of guilt against the defendant, it shall be determined with the benefit of the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3483, Jun. 19, 2018). In addition, in order for the crime of insufficient omission, which commits a crime involving an act, such as interference with one’s business, by omission, to be established, such omission should be deemed the same as the act of commission (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Do13211, Dec. 22, 2017).