beta
Text
The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.
Reasons
1. On December 7, 2015, the Defendant destroyed an amount equivalent to KRW 971,400 at the 25-year prone market price of prone trees owned by the victim in the 25-year 25-dong saw, on the ground that the Doar bank entered his own house near the Doar G (F, 52 years of age)’s house of the victim G, located in the Doar City of 11:00 on December 7, 2015.
2. The record reveals the following facts: ① Naju-si H land (F in the city of Naju-si) and I land are immediately attached; ② H land was acquired by J, the father of G, on January 10, 1967, and died in around 2013, J exercised its ownership; ③ The father of the Defendant acquired the ownership on November 17, 197; ③ The Defendant died on September 14, 1996; ④ the Defendant was residing in the house on the said land; ④ the Defendant, as indicated in the facts charged on December 7, 2015, but the fact that the land was located in the mold of Han-si land.
The facts charged in this case are premised on the fact that the above prote tree is the subject matter of G.
The evidence that seems consistent with this lies in the police statement statement and investigation report (referring to the witness K and L phone investigation) about G, and the former is inadmissible.
In light of the legal principles with respect to the scope of validity of land ownership, as long as the fung tree was planted in I’s land, the fung tree is not owned by G, barring any special circumstance. Therefore, it is insufficient to recognize the facts charged only with the statement of an investigation report stating that the fung tree was planted before 20 years by J, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the fung tree is a fung tree’s subject matter.
3. In conclusion, the instant facts charged constitute a time when there is no proof of crime, and thus, the Defendant should be acquitted on the basis of the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the judgment of innocence should be published based on Article 58(2) of the Criminal Act.