The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. On October 22, 2016, the summary of the facts charged reveals that the Defendant’s house water was cut off at the Cro in Masan-si, Masan-si, Dasan-si, Dasan-si, the Defendant had lost its utility by exceeding KRW 50,000,000, and 1750,000,000,000,000,000.

2. On the following grounds, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was proved to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt that the Defendant destroyed a chemical part.

It is difficult to see it.

A. The Defendant’s statements by the police, public officials E in the D office, and policeF, etc. are admissible as evidence that the Defendant destroyed the said fire.

B. Since the police statements of the defendant are denied by the defendant, they are inadmissible (Article 312(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act).

D Public Officials E of the D Office “A defendant was not deemed to have destroyed a fire, and the defendant destroyed a fire from the police.

Inasmuch as the Defendant made a statement, this is not a direct evidence of the fact that the Defendant destroyed the portion of fire.

(d)

The police F was called up upon the report that it was called up to the department at the time.

Residents discussed that "the defendant had been under the influence of alcohol at the time," and discussed that "the defendant had been under the influence of alcohol."

Accordingly, the defendant found the defendant's house, and the defendant stated that "the fire was cut down by taking a fractional measure, and the fire was cut down."

The place at sea is the place where the defendant spawn around the breath in drinking.

“The statement was made to the effect that it was “.”

1) However, since the above statement contains a case where a statement made by a person, other than the defendant, at the trial date, constitutes a case where the statement made by the defendant is about the contents of the defendant's statement, it may be admitted as evidence only when it is proved that the statement was made under particularly reliable circumstances (Article 316 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act). However, the mental state of the defendant is not sufficient enough.