The defendant shall publicly announce the summary of the judgment against the defendant not guilty.

The summary of the facts charged of this case is that "the defendant committed an act of disturbance in the neighboring area at the Seoul Station that was located in the 122 Seoul Station around November 13, 2008, Young-dong 2, Young-gu, Seoul around 12:45."

In a criminal trial, the burden of proof for the facts constituting an offense prosecuted is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction is to be based on evidence with probative value, which makes the judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, even if there is a suspicion of guilt against the defendant, the interest of the defendant is to be judged.

As shown in the facts charged in the instant case, the witness C’s legal statement, offender exposure report, and notification disposition, which are the police officer in charge of crackdown, are inquired of the evidence.

Witness

C The issue of whether an offender who was under control at the time is a criminal defendant is not memory, and if the offender refuses to affix his/her signature and seal, it is stated in the criminal identification report as “refusal.” The penalty is confirmed at the time of imposing the penalty, and if there is no identification card, the police officer contacted the police station with his/her fingerprint number, confirmed the offender’s fingerprint number, and confirmed the identity of the offender. At the time of 2008, the police officer confirmed the offender’s fingerprint number, and confirmed the conformity with the face. The DNA belt that controlled the Defendant was frequently and the police officer knew about the offender’s identity.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the fact that a report on an offender's exposure states "refus" to the offender's column without signing or sealing the offender's signature or sealing, and that an inquiry about a written notification is a mechanically registered and output of the details of the penalty notification, each of the above evidence alone is insufficient to recognize that the person who committed an act of disturbing neighboring the facts charged in this case is the same person, and

Then, this case.