In light of the fact that prior to the instant case, the victim had already been divided by only talks with the victim at the above house and the Defendant, who had been found in the said house after the instant case, was admitted or understood that the victim entered the house at the time of the instant case, or he was aware that the victim was understood, and thus the intention of residential intrusion was dismissed, the lower court convicted the Defendant of the instant facts charged, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. At the time of the decision of the court below, G and E, which were located in the victim D’s house, consistently stated in the investigation process and the court of the court below that “the defendant, as the victim’s house gate was opened and the victim’s house gate was disputed with F, was led to F, and the victim I stated that “at the time of the trial, the victim was unable to directly witness the above situation, but the victim’s house gate was clearly recorded”, and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court of the court below and the court of the trial, comprehensively taking into account the following: (a) on June 24, 2011, the defendant could be sufficiently recognized that the victim’s house gate was intruded with F, and that the victim’s house gate was invaded by F, and that at the time of the instant case, the defendant’s house gate used by the defendant was far away.

The fact that E has been punished for perjury with regard to assault cases with the accused or with the victim is insufficient to reverse the above recognition, and otherwise to change the accused.