The defendant is not guilty, and the summary of the judgment of innocence is publicly notified.

1. The abstract of the public prosecution;

A. On March 11, 2017, around 05:05, the Defendant damaged another’s property by using a impM3 vehicle owned by the victim D, who was parked at the front of Mapo-gu Seoul, Seoul, by using a impM3 vehicle in front of the driver’s seat to the back of the driver’s seat so that the repair cost can be KRW 4 million.

B. The Defendant, at the same time and at the same place, destroyed another’s property to cover one million won for repairing costs, by using the flick tool that had been in possession of a G SP car owned by the victim F, from the front door to the rear door of the driver’s seat, using the flick tool.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the Defendant laid away food waste on the day of the instant case and did not damage the vehicle.

B. As to the fact that the Defendant destroyed the above QM3 vehicle, there is no direct evidence other than the black stuff image (G SP vehicle stuff).

In that sense, according to the black image, it is only recognized that the defendant went out of the house and returned back to the direction of the defendant's house and brought about the above QM3 vehicle liability on the above QM3 vehicle while he was passing by the above QM3 vehicle.

According to evidence, the above vehicles were damaged in a way that flive tool, such as a flive tool, was destroyed by flive tool, and the above actions by the defendant alone by the defendant can be destroyed by a flive method by flive flive tool.

It is difficult to see it.

In addition, in the case of the above SP car, even if based on the above black image, there is only excessive image of the defendant's side of the above vehicle, and there is no direct evidence to acknowledge that the defendant damaged it.

In addition, the evidence submitted alone is insufficient to recognize the facts of prosecution.

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