beta
Text
The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.
Reasons
1. On November 18, 2018, between 18:00 and 18:30, the Defendant: (a) committed a theft with one half of the market price equivalent to KRW 600,00,00, at the victim’s market price, which was kept in custody in the inside of the inside of the inside of the inside of the inside of the inside of the inside of the inside of the inside of the inside of the said building B, by opening and entering a date-type draber, which was prepared to load the gas pipeline installed on the said outside of the opening of the victim D; and (b) by entering the inside of the said outside of the said building C.
2. Determination
A. In a criminal trial, criminal facts should be acknowledged based on strict evidence with probative value, which leads to a judge to have the conviction that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof fails to sufficiently reach the extent that such conviction would lead to the prosecutor’s above conviction, even if there are suspicions of guilt, such as non-influence in the defendant’s assertion or defense, it should be determined with the benefit of the defendant.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do14487, Apr. 28, 2011). B.
As shown in the facts charged in the instant case, the suspect’s photograph and investigation report (suspect A 11.7.) are the evidence, etc.
According to the above evidence, there is a fact that there is a doubt that the Defendant did not commit the instant crime. However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, i.e., (i) as a result of the appraisal of the sufficient trace of the arche shoes discovered on the Defendant’s vehicle on November 9, 2018 and of the sufficient trace found in the victim’s inside of his/her residence, it is found that the condition of the garment and damage, which are unique features of the garment, cannot be compared and specified; (ii) the identity of this material does not appear on the part of the Defendant’s garment floor photograph (Evidence No. 203, 222 of the evidence record) and on-site identification report.