The defendant is innocent.

1. On February 25, 2017, the Defendant: (a) around 19:45 on February 25, 2017, the summary of the facts charged in the instant case is as follows: (b) whether the Defendant, a resident of the said apartment, would have caused a mistake in parking, and (c) whether he/she said apartment as a resident of the said apartment, “dle parking.”

“In the event of a Si reserve,” the Si reserve was flaged.

On February 25, 2017, the Defendant damaged 1,441,956 won of the repair cost by impuling the back door, the joint ridge and the back wheel door door, which was parked by the said victim at the above apartment parking lot on February 25, 2017.

2. On the day of the instant case, around 19:45, the Defendant and the defense counsel took delivery to C apartment, and there was a confusion from the victim due to parking problems. However, as stated in the instant facts charged, there was no fact that the car owned by the victim was destroyed by the said apartment again around 20:15 around the same day as indicated in the instant facts charged.

3. Determination

A. In a criminal trial, the prosecutor bears the burden of proving the facts constituting the crime prosecuted, and the conviction should be based on the evidence of probative value that makes the judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, even if there is a suspicion of guilt against the defendant, it shall be determined with the benefit of the defendant.

B. Before 30 minutes of damage to a passenger car owned by the victim, whether the defendant has to park well from the damaged person.

Doese?

In light of the fact that there was a decoration to the purport that the Defendant was "," and the appearance and walk of the person who seems to be the offender shown in CCTV video appears to be somewhat similar to the Defendant's usual appearance and walk, there is considerable doubt as to whether the Defendant would have been mixed due to parking problems and not damaged a car owned by the victim.