beta
Text
The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.
Reasons
1. On November 4, 2013, the summary of the facts charged, 2014, the Defendant sold to the Victim F the scrap metal of his factory in the former Northern-gun E.
1. On June 2014, the Defendant removed 6 tons of a factory roof strongboard, which is the market value of the victim, sold to the above factory and the victim, from the company, and cut off.
2. On June 29, 2014, the Defendant removed a consortium, which is a man-made machinery and equipment in an amount equivalent to KRW 2.5 million, at the market price owned by the victim, sold to the victim at the above plant and the victim, and stolen it.
On February 2014, the Defendant sold the scrap metal of the closed building in the North Korean territory E to the victim F.
Nevertheless, on August 2014, the Defendant occupied the above closed building and embezzled it by having the shot beamline owned by the victim on the closed building and the steel pipe cut in custody for the victim, while the Defendant was in custody of the scrap metal, such as the shot beamline, the steel pipe pipe pipe, etc. on the closed building, G with approximately KRW 16 million after receiving approximately KRW 16 million from the scrap metal businessman.
2. Determination
A. The burden of proving the criminal facts prosecuted in a criminal trial is the prosecutor, and the conviction should be based on the evidence with probative value that makes the judge feel true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt of guilt against the defendant (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do5662, Dec. 24, 2002, etc.). (b) According to each of the evidence of this case, according to each of the above facts charged, the defendant brought about a consortium (hereinafter “instant consortium”) at the factory E (hereinafter “instant factory”) located in the North Korean E (hereinafter “instant factory”) around June 29, 2014, as indicated in the summary of the above facts charged.
However, in light of the above legal principles, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence of this case are examined.