beta
Text
The defendant shall be innocent.
Reasons
1. On June 6, 2017, the Defendant: (a) was a person who had worked as a victim C’s staff member in Busan Jung-gu’s operations; (b) was aware of the body and head of the victim’s body and head by using the gap in which the victim’s surveillance was neglected in the said D Frequency Calculation Unit; and (c) was 150,000 won in cash owned by the victim, and was stolen by putting it in his front horse.
2. In a criminal trial for determination, the burden of proving the facts constituting an offense prosecuted is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction of guilt is to be based on evidence of probative value, which makes a judge feel true that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, the suspicion of guilt against the Defendant even if there is no such evidence.
Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.
(see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1151, Jul. 22, 2010). According to CCTV images submitted by a prosecutor, some doubtful circumstances, such as the statement by an investigative agency, etc., that the Defendant, at the time of the instant case, was aware of the fact that the Defendant was living together with the Defendant for a relatively longer time, and she was able to check the front and rear back of the Defendant’s imprisonment without prison labor. In addition, E, F, etc., who worked together at D frequency, attempted to bring the Defendant out of his/her wall to pay money to C, following the Defendant’s argument that the Defendant did not comply with the settlement of accounts.
On the other hand, according to the evidence adopted and examined by this court, the following circumstances are recognized:
① The Defendant did not dismiss or retire the Defendant from office until September 2017, asserting that the Defendant had continuously stolen money from the 2013th to the time of the instant case. This seems to be very exceptional in light of the empirical rule.
② As to the Defendant’s theft of money and valuables, C asserts that the starting system does not coincide with that on the day of the instant case, and that the Defendant was forced to confirm it.