2. In a judgment, the burden of proof for the criminal facts prosecuted in a criminal trial is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction is to be based on the evidence of probative value that makes the judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, the suspicion of guilt against the defendant is between the suspect, even if there is no such evidence.

Even if the interest of the defendant is to be determined by the interests of the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do5662, Dec. 24, 2002). According to the records of this case, including the witness E’s legal statement, the defendant does not enter the D Research Institute’s mechanical room without permission as stated in the facts charged. On February 18, 2012, the defendant stated that he/she would wish to report the system inside the mechanical room to E, who is the authorized administrator’s agent, who is the person in charge of the management of the office building as of February 18, 2012, and that he/she entered the mechanical room with permission from E, and therefore, it cannot be said that the defendant was aware that he/she entered the mechanical room against the will of the

In addition, the prosecutor performed the duty to prove that there was a defect in the party's consent because the defendant entered the office for criminal purposes. However, according to the records of this case, the defendant was issued a disposition on April 29, 2013 against the charge of causing property damage that the defendant damaged the utility by cutting the heat heat of the disease control income in the D Research Institute mechanical room around 10:00 on February 18, 2012, in light of the fact that it was issued by the prosecutor of the horizontal Housing Site Office of the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office on April 29, 2013.