Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on the ground that the victim's house does not constitute "the above summary" which is the object of the crime of intrusion upon residence, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment

2. Determination

A. In the crime of intrusion upon residence, the residence or structure, which is the object of the act of intrusion, does not simply refer to the structure itself, but includes the above summary. In order to become the above summary, it is clearly revealed that the manager, as the surrounding land adjacent to the structure, installed a door and fence, etc. on the boundary with the outside and provided for the use of the structure (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do613, Jun. 10, 2004, etc.). In addition, the burden of proof for the crime prosecuted in a criminal trial lies with the prosecutor, and the burden of proof for conviction is based on evidence with probative value that leads to the conviction of the facts charged to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt by the judge. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt about the defendant's guilt, the interest of the defendant should be determined (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do10096, Jun. 25, 2009).

However, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is that C is the place and place above in the above facts.