beta
Text
The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.
Reasons
1. In the facts charged, the Defendant prepared food, such as drinking gas, after drinking alcohol at a house, and boomed with drinking alcohol at a house. In 2014, the Defendant, who frightened, frightened on gas bags, and frightened on a fright to drink at a house, and frighted on a frighten and frighted with a fire.
A. On May 7, 2017, the Defendant, at around 03:15, went to the Defendant’s house located in C building D, after drinking alcohol with B, and then drinking alcohol for himself.
B A locked on the floor, and the Defendant was able to dump with a portable gas bag on the floor in order to string down the door, and the Defendant was able to turn off the door on the floor to fump, with a fump with a fump attached to the surrounding fire due to the negligence, and explosiond by a fump attached to the above gas cans, and on the same day, around 04:10 on the same day, the fire was fumped by the entire room, such as the wall and the ceiling.
In the end, the Defendant destroyed the said Category D, which is owned by the victim E, by setting the repair cost of KRW 12.7 million.
B. The Defendant, at the time, at the time, at the place specified in paragraph 1, caused the death of the victim due to negligence by failing to evacuate the victim B (18 years old) who was divingd from the side, by taking out the victim B (18 years old) from the outside, while putting him/her a hot shotle, who was locked by the aforesaid negligence, at the time, and at the same time, at the same time and place, and by negligence, resulting in the death of the victim as a fire on the same day.
2. Determination
A. In a criminal trial, the finding of guilt must be based on evidence of probative value, which leads a judge to the conviction that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt.
In a case where the prosecutor’s proof does not sufficiently reach such a level that leads to conviction, even if there are suspicions of guilt, it cannot be determined as the interests of the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do13416, Jul. 24, 2014).