The defendant shall be innocent.

On April 4, 2014, the Defendant leased approximately 61.35 square meters of the first floor underground of Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C Building, and decided to use the management room on the first floor as well as D with the victim who is the managing body of the above building. From around that time, the Defendant used the management room together with the victim. On August 30, 2014, around 07:00, the key of the first floor entrance was arbitrarily replaced so that the damaged person could not enter the management room.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the management of the above building by force.

Judgment

In a criminal trial, the prosecutor bears the burden of proving the facts constituting the crime prosecuted in the criminal trial, and the conviction should be based on evidence with probative value that leads the judge to feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt as to the defendant's guilt, the interests of the defendant should be determined even if there is any doubt as to the defendant (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1151, Jul. 22, 2010, etc.). The health room for the instant case is evidence as follows: (a) the defendant listens to D's accusation, the police statement about D, and the statement that the victim interfered with the management of the building by arbitrarily replacing the key of the 1st floor entrance as described in the facts charged, such as the defendant's statement in the facts charged, and all of these arguments are discussed D.

In this respect, the witness E was not the defendant but the key of the above 1st floor entrance.

The testimony was made in this court, and the witness D, who is the complainant, was also aware of the change of the key to the entrance of the 1st floor above, E. However, the testimony was made in this court to the effect that the defendant was accused due to the contract's becoming the defendant.

In full view of these circumstances, it is difficult to believe that D's complaint, police's statement protocol on D, and hearing of complainants' statements as they are, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the facts charged.

Then.