The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On August 4, 2018, the Defendant: (a) placed the victim D(36 years of age, n) in a shopping set using the head of the above “C” in the “C” store of the second underground floor of the building B in Hanam-si, Hanam-si; and (b) placed the victim D(36 years of age, n) in the shopping set using the head of the above “C; (c) placed the victim’s cellphone 6S cellphone 1; and (d) 1,50,000 won in the market price of the victim’s cell phone; and (e) placed the card 1,000,000 won in a Sc knick Sc 1; and (e) 20,000 won in the market price of the 20,000 won in hand; and (e) led the victim to a theft of the said goods (hereinafter referred to as the “victim”).

2. In a criminal trial, the burden of proving the facts charged lies in the prosecutor, and the conviction should be based on the evidence of probative value, which makes the judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, the defendant is suspected to be guilty, 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 2006Do735 Decided April 27, 2006, etc.). In light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence adopted and investigated by the court, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone cannot be deemed as proven to the extent that the Defendant’s intent to larceny or to obtain illegal gains is beyond reasonable doubt.

① The shopping cart on which the instant bags were included was displayed together with other cararts at the storage office of the instant bags. However, the existence of the carart was not easily confirmed, unless the carart was brought closely into the storage office of the instant case prior to the deduction.

(14 pages) In addition, in order to use a cart in the above store, it shall be taken out in order from the cart which is set up on the last end.