The defendant is the person asserting that he is a relationship with B, and the victim C is currently living together with B.

On September 28, 2018, at around 08:08, the Defendant destroyed the entrance of the victim's possession by opening the entrance at the victim's house located underground in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, on the ground that B living together with the victim does not open the door, and by walking the entrance door several times, the Defendant damaged the entrance of the victim's ownership by setting the lower part of the entrance of the Aluminum located in Aluminum by walking the entrance at several times.

2. Article 307(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that “The recognition of a criminal fact shall reach the degree of proof with no reasonable doubt.”

Therefore, the conviction in a criminal trial should 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 the degree of conviction, the determination should be made with the benefit of the defendant even if there is a suspicion of guilt.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Do1405, Sept. 1, 1992; 2000Do5395, Feb. 23, 2001). Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the record, the Defendant’s finding B at the victim’s home at the date of entry in the facts charged and opening the entrance, thereby recognizing the fact that he opened the entrance.

However, it cannot be said that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone proves that the entrance was destroyed as stated in the facts charged to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt.

The victim is opened when the police (the second interrogation protocol of the suspect's interrogation) and the defendant find the entrance in this court, and the entrance is opened.