As above, the Defendant infringed upon the victim’s residence and thereby harming the peace of the victim’s residence.

2. In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by this Court, the following circumstances are recognized.

① On December 1, 2016, the complainant had already left waste, waste, etc. in a pre-tax house and appears to have left and moved out to another place.

② After one month from that, at the time of the Defendant’s access to the house on the deposit basis, the complainant arranged the remainder of the house, and the wastes of a considerable amount of waste in the house were stored.

Therefore, the defendant's act of entering the house itself was to the extent that it could actually harm the peace of residence that the complainant enjoy.

It is difficult to readily conclude that there was a de facto need to protect the peace of residence of a complainant.

It is also difficult to see it.

③ On December 31, 2016, the last day of the decision on compulsory mediation of the case involving the name of a building, there is sufficient room to view that the Defendant’s entry into the relevant house through the entrance door opened for the settlement of deposit and simultaneous implementation thereof constitutes a justifiable act that does not violate the social norms.

In light of the above overall circumstances, it is difficult to readily conclude that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone proves the facts charged without any reasonable doubt, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, since the facts charged constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, the defendant is acquitted in accordance with the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

In addition, the defendant's failure to appear on the trial date and thereby publicly announced the verdict of innocence.