205, 703(a) Other structure or fire prevention

(b) Ordinary automobile fire prevention;

(680O), ○-si engineer

Residence

Permanent domicile

Maternity

Law Firm Shingu

Attorney Lee Jong-young, and Kim Young-young

June 23, 2006

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of the facts charged in this case

On June 5, 2005, the Defendant: (a) from around February 2004, entered into an internal relationship with the victim A (the age of 39) and frequently disputed on the ground of differences of character; (b) received mobile phone text messages from the victim A, “I am well living,” at the end of the punishment for city expenses due to money problems; (c) caused the situation where the internal combustion relationship with the above A is to be severed, such as receiving from the victim A, “I am well living,” and then, (d) tried to extinguish A’s house or automobile on June 5, 2005, and (e) reached 12:00,000 won or more of the above general 0,000 won-type 0,000 won-type 0,000 won-type 0,000 won-type 0,000 won-type 0,000 won-type 0,000 won-type 30,000 won-type 0.

2. Defendant's assertion;

In this regard, the Defendant had been at a place located far away from the house A located in Daegu ○○○-Gun, ○○○-Eup located in ○○○○○-gun, a fire site at the time of the occurrence of the instant fire. However, the Defendant denied the Defendant’s crime by denying the Defendant, not to go against the new wall in order to make a settlement under the contract with A significantly different from A.

3. Determination

A. Whether direct evidence exists

(1) 이 사건 공소사실에 대한 증거로는 A가 이 법정 및 수사기관에서 한 진술, ㅇㅇ ○, ○○○, ○○○가 수사기관에서 한 진술과 화재현장 임장일지, 피고인에 대한 휴대폰 통화내역 및 위치추적 결과, 감정 결과회보, 거짓말탐지 검사결과서 등이 있다.

(2) However, since A’s statement had been told that the Defendant would frequently fire since it had been in an internal relationship with the Defendant, it is merely doubtful that the Defendant could have committed the instant crime because of the circumstance that there was serious harm to the Defendant’s appraisal with the new wall on the date of the instant accident. ② ○○○○○’s statement was merely a statement that the Defendant suffered damage due to the instant fire, and the 119th report was made, it is not a direct evidence of the Defendant’s crime, and ③ as the result, it is difficult to find that the Defendant could not have been found to have been aware of the fact that the Defendant could not have been found to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been found.

B. Whether the facts charged constitute indirect facts

(1) However, the degree of the formation of a conviction in a criminal trial is to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt, but to the extent that it is excluded from all possible suspicions that are unreasonable. The proof of a criminal fact does not necessarily require direct evidence, but can be deemed indirect evidence consistent with logical and empirical rules. Even if indirect evidence does not have full probative value as to the criminal fact individually, if it is deemed that there is a comprehensive probative value that does not exist the sole evidence when comprehensively considering the whole evidence under mutual relation, it can be acknowledged as a criminal fact if it is deemed that there is a comprehensive probative value that does not exist the sole evidence.

(2) In full view of the evidence mentioned above and the statements made by the Defendant in this court and investigative agency, the following facts can be acknowledged.

(A) A around February 2004, the Defendant had been operating ○○ Taxi and maintained the relationship of internal combustion by using the Defendant’s taxi.

(B) The Defendant and A began a major dispute over the instant one week prior to the instant one, and around June 3, 2005 to June 4, 2005, the Defendant and A told that the Defendant had expressed that he would be able to bring about a 's house with A' and that the Defendant would be able to bring about a 's house with A', and that the Defendant would not have been able to bring about a dispute with A, and that he would have been able to bring about a 's dispute with A' (Article 34, 177), and even before that, the Defendant made a statement to that effect on A more than 2-3 occasions.

(C) Meanwhile, between 00:30 on June 5, 2005 and 02:00 on the day of the instant case, A was found as the house of the Defendant located behind the ○○○○ 1 Dong-dong ○○○○○○○○○, Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, and brought a dispute over the Defendant’s wife, such as: (a) having compensated the Defendant for losses arising from failure to operate a taxi due to a dispute with the Defendant prior to that time; and (b) having returned KRW 80,000,000, who was the head of the Defendant.

(D) A around 08:50 on June 5, 2005, when he was accompanied by the husband and wife, called ○○-gun ○○○-dong. On June 5, 2005, the Defendant called A’s cell phone at ○○-dong, Daegu ○○-gu, Seoul ○○-dong, where 10:51 minutes, 10:52 minutes, 10:57 minutes, 10:59 minutes, and 10:59 minutes, and the Defendant called A’s cell phone at ○-dong, Daegu ○○-gun, Daegu ○-gun, and around 12:11, at around 12:11, the Defendant called A’s wife at ○-gun, Daegu ○-gun, Daegu ○-gun, one time, and the Defendant called two times from 12:22 and 12:24 minutes to ○-dong, Daegu-gu.

(E) When the Defendant was identified as a suspect in the initial police station, his father and her father and her father were to find a hospital, such as his wife and her father and son on the day of the fire. Finally, her wife and ○○○○○-Gun ○○○○-si ○○○-gun Gun Gun Gun Gun Gun Gun Gun Gun Gun Gun Gun Gun Gun Gun - the Defendant stated that the Defendant was unable to treat her child by her wife and her husband and her wife and her father and her mother did not turn back to her house. However, the Defendant stated that the Defendant was in ○○-Eup at the time of the fire by tracking the location of the cell phone owned by the Defendant, and that he was in 200 meters near A’s house - 300 meters, but did not turn back to A.

(F) However, prior to the occurrence of the case, A stated that the Defendant was playing in the same side of the date of the case, and that from around 10:51 on the day of the instant case, from around four times to around 10:51, the Defendant said that he had been in the phone call with the Defendant that he still left the marital conference (Investigation No. 192, 194).

(G) On the other hand, around June 4, 2005, at around 20:30, A parked the instant vehicle onto the wall of the ○○○○ Ggll, located adjacent to A’s house (hereinafter “A”), and the Defendant was aware of the fact that A’s vehicle was small and medium, and the front page of A’s vehicle number began to start to ○○. (No. 34 of the investigation) and the foregoing small and medium 2 vehicle was found to have a tent where inflammable substances, such as luene, ethyl hexe, etc., are located in the back of the driver’s seat of the said small and medium 2 vehicle.

(3) As seen above, even before several days before the crime of this case was committed, the Defendant told A to the effect that “the Defendant died in the house of her body by her body,” and that the Defendant did not have any fact in the A’s office, until the result of tracking the location of his cell phone was turned out, it was denied that the Defendant did not have any fact in the A’s office, and that the Defendant had been in the 00 Eup/Myeon of 158, 178 at the time of the fire prevention of this case (Investigation, Investigation, 158, 178) at the time of the fire prevention of this case, the Defendant was seeking to come up with A or compromise with the reason near the A’s office at the time of the fire prevention of this case, but such change was difficult to believe in light of A’s statement that the Defendant did not have any knowledge of his office at the time, and it was also difficult for the Defendant to have known that he did not have any possibility of her office, and in light of the fact that the Defendant did not have come up to 2000 meters after the A’s office.

(4) On the other hand, on the other hand, there is no evidence that there was a witness directly witnessing the scene of the crime in this case, or that there was a inflammable substance used for the fire prevention in the vehicle and residence of the defendant, and the prosecutor presented as evidence of guilt. The fact that there was only the fact that the defendant paid A a fire even prior to the crime in this case, or that the above two persons dispute each other before and after the crime in this case, and that the defendant was in the vicinity of the crime scene before and after the crime in this case, and that there was no reason to understand the reason that the defendant went to the scene near the crime in this case, even if considering the above fact, it is insufficient to conclude that the defendant was the fire prevention in this case just because it was insufficient to conclude that the defendant was the fire prevention in this case, and even though it was generally used for a specific purpose, it is difficult to view that there were no reasonable indirect evidence to prove that there was no other evidence to the extent that there was no reason to prove the crime in this case.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the facts charged against the defendant 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.

The assistant judge of the presiding judge;

Judges Gu Residents

Judges, maternity leave, which cannot sign and seal;

The presiding judge

Judges