The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On March 16, 2015, the Defendant, on the 1st floor of the Daejeon Seodong-gu Daejeon, issued a joint entrance question, without any reason, on the 1st floor of the building, and then destroyed the entrance door by putting the knife of the entrance door up to three times on the wall of the building and then damaged the fixed gate of the said part of the joint entrance, thereby leaving the door close normally.

As above, the Defendant destroyed and damaged part of the co-entry inquiry amounting to KRW 1,000,000 at the market price owned by the victim D.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant asserts that the entrance door was opened and closed, and the entrance fee was not set off at least three times on the wall of the building, and that there was no intention to commit the crime of damage even if the door was damaged. Since the entrance was originally damaged, the entrance was not set off due to the Defendant’s act.

B. The evidence as shown in the facts charged in the instant case includes the witness E’s statement, the police statement on F’s statement, the investigation report (in the 7th page of the investigation record), the internal investigation report (in the 7th page of the investigation record), the internal investigation report (in the 31st page of the investigation record), the damaged photograph, and CCTV image data at the time of committing

However, for the following reasons, the above evidence is insufficient to recognize the facts charged in the instant case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

1) There was no witness of the Defendant who had the entrance door at the wall. According to the investigation report (the investigation records No. 7, the resident G was located in the time room in which the 302 trillion won was set off on March 16, 2015, but the Defendant, a resident of 301, damaged the 301st door by opening the door immediately after hearing a large amount of sound from the first floor.

F heard the horses of the above G and reported it to the police.

The statements of the above G and F alone are the sounds of a large sound from the first floor facing the wall, and it cannot be known whether the sound from the first floor was the defendant. As such, each of the above evidence is the facts charged of this case.