2010 Madthy 1692 Madthy

BankA (56 years old, South)

Mawnings

Attorneys Seo Jae-ok (Korean National Assembly)

July 20, 2010

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Facts charged;

피고인은 2009.12.5. 00:20경 부산 수영구 망미동에 있는 '◇' 앞 도로에 이르러, 술에 취해 도로에 앉아 잠을 자고 있는 피해자 윤C을 발견하고 피해자가 소지하고 있는 지갑 등 금품을 절취하기로 마음먹었다.

The Defendant, while visiting the surrounding areas of the victim, was approaching the victim by using any cresh that does not pass by the people, was booming the victim, and attempted to steals the money and valuables by putting the victim's hand into the dubs and back part of the dubs and back part of the dubs, but did not discover any money and valuables.

2. Determination

The evidence as to the facts charged of this case can be said to be lec, Park Jong-C1, HC2’s statement, and investigation report, etc. based thereon. The witness Park Jong-C1’s statement in the court of law was that the defendant was sprinking the body of the victim. The witness HC2’s statement in the court of law was not in the situation where the defendant continued to be sprinking the victim, and the defendant was sprinking the victim’s surroundings, and sprink’s statement that the victim’s witness, was sprinking the victim’s sprink and going towards the underground passage. The victim’s statement is that the defendant or the defendant’s situation had no memory.

6) On August 208, 31: (a) A witness was unable to find out the criminal history of the Defendant as a police officer using the Defendant’s force as an information source; (b) (c) a person thought that he was punished by committing an offense by a police officer who was well aware of the Defendant’s power; (d) a witness was aware of the Defendant’s power at a place where the Defendant was exposed to information source by using the Defendant’s force as an information source until March 2009; (c) a witness was 3 and C1 and C2 appear to have a strong prejudice that the Defendant would have come to commit a criminal act from the time when the Defendant appeared around the victim; and (d) a witness was unable to view that there was a considerable difference between the Defendant’s movement to cut off his body or his body, and thus, (e) a witness was unable to take advantage of the fact that it was difficult for him to find out that there was a considerable distance between the victim’s force and the bar, and (e) a witness was in progress.

Thus, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Judges Cho Superintendent-hee