주거침입미수
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of legal principles) states that the Defendant’s fingerprints was detected at the scene of the crime that “as to the detection of his fingerprints at the scene of the crime, he was found to have his fingerprinted for about 10 years before the scene of the crime,” but there is no direct evidence to prove that the fingerprint remains for 10 years, and that there was no direct evidence to prove that the Defendant was not at the scene of the crime at the time of the crime.
Therefore, although the court below found the defendant's attempt to inflict upon residence at the scene of crime and could sufficiently recognize the attempted crime, it rendered a not-guilty verdict on the charge of this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of
2. Determination
A. On June 26, 2014, around 02:40 on June 26, 2014, the Defendant: (a) came into the house of the victim D located in Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government; (b) opened one window of the second floor toilet, which was installed on the outer wall of the building in Seongdong-gu, and tried to open the door and intrude into the residence of the victim; and (c) did so by the victim’s escape.
B. The lower court’s direct evidence supporting the instant facts charged is merely one fingerprint point of the Defendant’s fingerprints taken from the victim’s home toilets. However, the Defendant’s fingerprint detection process can not be readily rejected as to the Defendant’s fingerprint detection process, and the Defendant’s credit card usage was submitted in support of the Defendant’s assertion that “The Defendant, as the Defendant was found to have actually worked at the victim’s house hold room, delivered the Defendant’s fingerprint with his wife at his house and left room on the following day,” and ③ the distance between the scene of the crime and the Defendant’s residence, the Defendant’s second children at the time did not seem to have difficulty going out of the Defendant at night, and it is not proven that the satisfaction taken from the scene of the crime accords with the Defendant.