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

1. On July 22, 2016, at around 23:50 on July 22, 2016, the Defendant: (a) committed a theft by taking advantage of the gaps in D dormitories located in Seongbuk-gun, the victim E, who was locked, from the victim’s market price of KRW 4,500, the victim’s market price located in the room room; (b) brought a theft of 1 A, a non-flus tobacco of KRW 4,500. The judgment of the Defendant was made on July 2, 201 by his intention to return, and there was no intention to obtain illegal acquisition.

DaNN

According to the evidence adopted by the court and examined by this court, the defendant and the victim were friendly between four to five years, and the defendant had three friendly districts, including F and G, at the time, and the defendant left the victim's tobacco, and then F sent the victim's photograph citing the above tobacco to "Kakao Stockholm" to the victim who affixed the victim's photograph citing the above tobacco, and notified the defendant of the fact that the defendant brought the above tobacco to the victim. The victim returned the Kakao Stockholm tobacco to the defendant by telephone, but the victim was to have the victim go to the defendant, but the defendant did not go to the path because of the lack of the vehicle, and brought tobacco to the future.

The facts of continuing a horse, and the victim reported to the police box before the beginning of the Sungju Police Station and was examined as the victim by July 23, 2016. Among them, the defendant appeared at the police box before the beginning of the police station and returned the tobacco to the victim. Whether G had tobacco at the time of this court at the time of this court

that he was aware that he was frying and returning to his own drinking water;

may be recognized as having testified.

According to the above facts, there is a doubt as to whether the defendant had the intent to obtain unlawful acquisition at the time of the instant case, and there is insufficient conviction as to only the evidence submitted by the prosecutor.

3. In conclusion, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

b) the Commission;