beta
Text
The defendant shall be innocent.
Reasons
1. Around February 28, 2013, the Defendant argued that “D” restaurant located on the second floor of the building located in Sinung-si, Sinung-si, the victim E and “the victim filed a complaint with defamation.” However, the victim took his/her cell phone from his/her cell phone to prevent the victim from filing a report on the 112 report, thereby leaving his/her cell phone on the cell phone so that the victim could not report the defect, thereby damaging the repair dog property.
2. The defendant and defense counsel asserted that the victim E lost a mobile phone before the occurrence of the instant case, and even if not, the defendant did not destroy the instant mobile phone.
3. Determination
A. In a criminal trial, the prosecutor bears the burden of proving the facts constituting the crime prosecuted, and the conviction should be based on the evidence of probative value, which makes the judge feel true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, the defendant is suspected of guilty.
Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1151, Jul. 22, 2010). (B)
First of all, according to the victim E's mobile phone base application submitted as evidence, the victim E has lost the mobile phone prior to the instant case, and the victim E applied for the change of the device while purchasing the used mobile phone on February 18, 2013. After the instant case, the victim E applied for the change of device when purchasing the used mobile phone again on March 2, 2013. Accordingly, it is recognized that the victim E was using the new mobile phone purchased at least at least at least at least at the time of the instant case.
Furthermore, among the evidence cited by the prosecutor as evidence that the cell phone of this case was damaged, according to the victim E’s statement in the first trial record and the police statement, the reason that the defendant accused himself as defamation at the time of this case.