If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

On May 17, 2019, from around 20:33 to around 21:43 of the same day, the Defendant collected fingers from the victim D’s house toilets located in the Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government building C, and opened a window on the shock network by inserting the fingers and infringed on the victim’s house.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement in court D and E's each legal statement;

1. Examination protocol of the accused by prosecution;

1. Each police statement made to D and E;

1. 112 reported case handling table;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to each investigation report (a reinforcement investigation related to the direction of the response team at the site, on-site photographing CD verification report, CCTV image verification report, etc.) each internal investigation report (a search of the current status of the first-dynamic measure taken by the police officer at the same time, on-site visiting the victim's family member, an abstract of CCTV for crime prevention in the vicinity of the place where the incident occurred, and a re-Analysis of CCTV video data for crime prevention in the vicinity

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 319 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of penalties;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Judgment on the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The Defendant at the time of the instant case, even though there was a fact between the two places where the victim’s home toilets are located, the Defendant opened the above toilet window and brought the toilet inside. However, there was no fact that he did not look at the above toilet window.

2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court of this case, the Defendant, at the time of this case, can recognize that the Defendant, by inserting fingers in the hole of the screen screen installed outside the toilet windows of the victim’s house at the time of this case, was able to peep the above toilet windows inside the toilet next year. Thus, the facts charged in this case are sufficiently recognized.

① First, examining the external structure of the victim’s house, the location where the toilet window is installed, and the distance between neighboring housing buildings, etc.