The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. On October 19, 2012, at around 13:40 on October 19, 2012, the Defendant: (a) when the Defendant were to live on leased a part of the long-term repair appropriations, the Defendant: (b) destroyed and damaged the instant apartment by a method that it is impossible to know that approximately KRW 2,820,000 of the repair cost would not be known that the victim D would not return part of the long-term repair appropriations; (c) the victim D, the owner, would not return part of the long-term repair appropriations; and (d) damaged it.

2. The Defendant consistently asserted that, since the investigative agency completed the director on the day on which the facts charged were entered, he only left the key to the guard room without opening the door of the above apartment, and did not commit the crime of destroying and damaging property.

In this case, each investigation agency and court of E, F, D, G, and H have made a statement as evidence that seems to correspond to the facts charged in this case.

However, each statement of D, E, and F is based on the presumption that the Defendant committed the instant crime in view of the fact that there was a dispute over the return of long-term repair appropriations between the Defendant and D before the instant crime was committed, and that the time interval between the time when the Defendant contactd D and E, and F was shorter between the time when the Defendant discovered the scene of the crime and the time interval between the time when the Defendant finished the crime was discovered. Each statement of G, and H is merely a statement concerning the circumstances before and after the instant crime, and it is difficult to view all the above statements as direct evidence to acknowledge the instant charges.

(q) In addition, D’s statements are inconsistent with D’s monetary content submitted by the prosecution, and their statements are not consistent, and G’s statements are also lacking consistency, and they are difficult to believe them as they are). In full view of other evidence submitted by the prosecution, the Defendant committed the instant crime without any reasonable doubt, excluding the possibility of committing the instant crime by any other person than the Defendant, even if taking into account the other evidence submitted by the prosecution.