beta
Text
The accused shall announce the summary of the judgment of innocence.
Reasons
1. The summary of the facts charged was around 17:00 on July 30, 2013, the Defendant: (a) was a prefabricated building managed by the victim D in Sacheon-si C and fourth floor; (b) on the basis of the estimation of the cost for removal of the above prefabricated-type building, the Defendant: (c) stated that “the building is removed, and is inside.” to the personal seal of the victim for the purpose of verifying the draft of the above prefabricated-type building in order to confirm the cost for removal of the above prefabricated-type building; and (d) stated that “the above parts shall be removed, and shall be removed, because they may be responsible therefor; and (e) caused the above parts to dismantle the lock, which is the lock device corrected in the above building, to damage the corrective device in the market price in the victim’s possession; and (e) intruded the victim’s building by having them enter
2. Determination
A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the record, the evidence alone submitted by the prosecutor that the influence of the name was removed from locks of the instant prefabricated structure.
It is not sufficient to recognize that the defendant invadedd the above structure, and the defendant removed the counter-locked to persons in the name of the defendant.
It is insufficient to recognize that the assembly-type structure of this case was invaded upon, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.
1) At the time of the instant case, D stated in the investigative agency and this court that, at the time of the instant investigation agency and this court, the Defendant her husband opened the locks that were corrected to the instant prefabricated structure, and subsequently, verified the site of the instant case, and subsequently, there was a trace of the intrusion on the said structure. However, in light of the following circumstances, D’s statements in investigation agency and this court are difficult to believe. A specific place where D’s statements were made to the Defendant’s horse, whether the Defendant’s husband was in the instant site, whether the Defendant’s husband was in the instant site, and whether D was in the instant site.