The defendant shall be innocent.

1. In the facts charged, the Defendant destroyed another’s property by having the victim D’s 300,000 books worth approximately 70,000 books of approximately 30,00 of the victim D, which were kept in custody at the small bank No. 301 of the Dong office, thrown away from September 12, 2012 to October 10 of the same year, the Defendant damaged the other person’s property by having the other party E, who is the case of the case, who is a man-made business operator, thrown no knowledge of the fact.

2. According to the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, the following facts are found: (a) there was a book owned D in the small room No. 301, and the Defendant entered into a remodeling construction contract with E for more than 10 households out of the total of 27 households; (b) and (c) E, while performing the said remodeling project, included the said book in the said remodeling project.

Furthermore, there is a statement at the police that E’s “the Defendant intended to throw away the article 301” as evidence that corresponds to the fact that the Defendant ordered E to throw away the said article.

However, the above statement is understood to include the meaning of "the defendant's removal of unnecessary articles for remodeling works" in the meaning of " removal of articles," and it is hard to believe it as it is in light of the statement in this court of E to the effect that "the defendant did not speak to the defendant as to the existence of books and the abandoned facts," and there is no evidence to prove that according to the above statement in this court of E, the defendant was unaware of the existence of the above books and the damage to them, and there is no other evidence to prove that the defendant knew the existence of the above books and destroyed them through E.

3. In conclusion, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of facts constituting a crime, and thus, is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the