The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On March 5, 2016, the Defendant: (a) purchased goods at “D” at the convenience store located in Seocheon-si, Seocheon-si, Seocheon-si; (b) on the part of the Defendant, the Defendant: (c) purchased goods from the victim E; (d) kept the number of the goods in the room; and (e) notified Korea of an amount equivalent to KRW 10,000 in the market price between the two pages, even though he/she was aware of the fact that he/she had a business owner’s error in the place of the design and was aware of the fact that he/she had a wrong knowledge of the fact that he/she was his/her own possession.

2. The defendant's assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel left the goods out of the accident convenience store, and left the convenience store's owner, without other words, and given brode with brode, the defendant was aware that he was dead, and the defendant was aware that he was dead, and the defendant did not have an intent to illegally obtain it, and the defendant is not guilty.

3. The recognition of a criminal fact in a judgment in a criminal trial must reach the level of proof that there is no reasonable doubt (Article 307(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act). In a case where the prosecutor’s proof does not sufficiently reach the degree of conviction, the determination should be based on the defendant’s benefit even if there is a suspicion of guilt.

On the other hand, as evidence corresponding to the facts charged in this case, there are some statements of the witness E by the witness E, the statement of the victim as stated in the internal investigation report (the other party to the victim's investigation) and investigation reports (the investigation of convenience store's counterpart and card settlement method).

First, I examine the witness E's legal statement.

Witness

E refers to F's statement that "Brode asked the defendant whether he was the defendant or not at the time of convenience store business, and later asked F's statement that "F was the defendant to confirm the fact that he was the defendant's lawsuit," and it is proved that F is not able to make a statement due to death, disease, or any other reason and that the statement was made under particularly reliable circumstances.