beta
Text
The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.
Reasons
1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant, around 11:08 on December 20, 2019, committed a theft with only one cell phone (market price equivalent to 1,580,000) for a opon PRO mobile phone (market price) between the victim and the victim, within the toilets of the Government of the Gyeonggi-si, where the victim B was working as a Hdarner (hereinafter “D”).
2. Determination:
A. In a criminal trial, the finding of guilt must be based on evidence of probative value, which leads a judge to the conviction that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt.
In a case where the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone does not reach such a level that leads to convictions, even if there are suspicions of guilts, the interest of the defendant should be determined as the interests of the defendant (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do21231, Oct. 31, 2017, etc.). (B) Next, the circumstances leading to a strong suspicion of convictions as to the facts charged in the instant case.
1) The time indicated in CCTV images of this case, which taken the D1 floor of this case (hereinafter “the first floor video”) appears to have been displayed rapidly for four minutes compared to the actual time of shooting.
According to the records of the report on internal investigation (the confirmation of the details of damage to the victim), ① the victim entered the toilet around 10:14 on the day of the instant case and left the toilet at around 10:20 on the day of the instant case while leaving the cell phone and leaving the toilet at around 11:04, ② the Defendant entered the toilet at around 11:04 and out of the toilet at around 11:08, ③ the fact that the location of the victim’s cell phone was checked, ③ the last location was confirmed near the instant D, but the fact that the tracking of the subsequent location was impossible at around 11:08, when the Defendant left the toilet, and ④ the victim was found to have started to find a mobile phone from around 11:35, but failed to find the fact.
On the other hand, according to the above facts, the defendant found the cell phone of the victim from the toilet.