The defendant is innocent.

1. On April 5, 2016, the Defendant destroyed the victim’s property by having the victim take care of the entrance door of a brick in the vicinity of the victim D in Gwangju-si on the ground that the victim was not subject to telephone, and making the victim take care of the repair cost at the time of opening the entrance door in front of the victim D’s residence in Gwangju-si, thereby making the victim take care of KRW 1.6 million.

2. The Defendant did not appear at the scene of the instant crime.

The argument is asserted.

The evidence of this case contains a statement in the investigative agency and court of the victim, but the victim was suspected to have committed the above crime, and did not directly witness the defendant at the time of the crime (the victim was unable to hear the voice of the police at the time of the initial statement of the police).

(A) It is difficult to identify the offender on the screen of the CCTV taken at the time.

Comprehensively considering all other evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the facts charged have been proven without reasonable doubt.

There is no evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

3. In conclusion, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the defendant should be acquitted by the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the above judgment should not be disclosed pursuant to the proviso of Article 58(2) of the Criminal Act.