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

1. Summary of the facts charged

A. On February 7, 2012, the Defendant: (a) around 16:20 on February 7, 2012, the Defendant: (b) sent file files file files to the victim D, the apartment management office, the apartment management office, “the second tenant representative meeting (Dong representative election, the electoral register ballot paper)” of the E election commission.

The Defendant, “I must not take the place to the victim,” and the Defendant had the words “Ilman”, but had the intention to keep the said file outside of the file from the beginning.

As such, the defendant deceivings the victim, gets a file file from the victim, and carried it with him.

B. On April 9, 2012, the Defendant was denied the emergency contact network that included the name and contact details of the management staff, the council of occupants’ representatives, the chairperson of the election commission, and female meetings, to the victim F, who is an accounting employee, in the above management office, and the victim F, who was the accounting employee, in the above management office.

The defendant went into a civil petition strike inside the management office, and went out with the emergency contact network which was under the victim's favor.

As such, the Defendant invadedd the victim’s room.

2. Determination

A. In fraud, the intent of unlawful acquisition in fraud includes not only the intent to take another person's goods as his/her own property but also the intent to temporarily use or dispose of another person's goods in accordance with its economic usage (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 66Do132, Mar. 15, 1966). According to the records, the fact that the defendant left the document files of this case at around 16:20, and returned them at around 17:00 on the same day on which the degree of 40 minutes was 16:20, and thus, it is difficult to conclude that the defendant merely brought about the inspection convenience and returned them again, and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to conclude that the defendant had the intention of unlawful acquisition.