beta
Text
The defendant shall be innocent.
Reasons
1. Facts charged;
A. From September 201 to May 2015, the Defendant violated the Management of Outdoor Advertising Products, etc., the Defendant installed a signboard using a iron prop with a height of about 3.5 meters, which is indicated as “C” on the road located in the city area B, e.g., Seosung-si from around September 2014 to around May 2015.
B. The Defendant violated the Road Act without obtaining permission of change from the competent authorities, and occupied and used a road by piling up approximately KRW 239 square meters on the site of the road site of the B and 2 lots from the eternic City where the Defendant used the road with access route from May 2015 to September 16, 2015.
2. Determination
A. The Defendant of the Defendant’s defense counsel leased the above building to the owner of the building on the ground of the C-Ssung City, the lessee is operating it in each operation. The Defendant did not set up a signboard at the place specified in the facts charged, and he did not set up a light at the place specified in the facts charged.
B. The burden of proof for the criminal facts prosecuted in a criminal trial is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction should be based on evidence with probative value that makes the judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt as to the defendant's guilt, the interest of the defendant should be judged even if there is suspicion as to the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Do6110, Feb. 11, 2003; 2005Do2342, Jun. 24, 2005). According to the evidence submitted by the defendant while denying each of the facts charged in this case, it is recognized that the F and G completed the business registration with the trade name "C" and "H" as the location of the business establishment, and F installed "C" in the course of operating the spread, and he cannot be ruled out as reference materials submitted by the public prosecutor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do2342, Jun. 24, 2005).