주거침입교사
The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.
1. On February 2015, the Defendant: (a) instructed D, who requested toilet water construction at the Defendant’s house located in Namyang-si, Namyang-si, 203, for the purpose of having the Defendant enter the victim E’s house, stating that “When the construction of tap water is completed, it shall be confirmed whether it is possible to enter the victim E’s house and shall be affixed with a photograph of evidence.”; and (b) let the Defendant enter the victim’s house.”
On February 11, 2015, the Defendant: (a) had D enter the said victim’s house into the said victim’s house on February 11, 2015; and (b) instigated the said victim to be injured.
2. Determination
A. In a criminal trial, the burden of proof for the facts constituting an offense prosecuted is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction is to be based on the evidence of probative value that makes the judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, even if there is a suspicion of guilt against the defendant, it shall be determined with the benefit of the defendant.
(See Supreme Court Decision 201Do7261 Decided November 10, 2011). B.
The statement in D's police is not sufficient as direct evidence to prove that the defendant has instigated D to enter the victim's residence and take a photograph of evidence.
However, according to the statement in D's statement in this court, the defendant heards that "the construction of repair works because water 103 was felbeled" from the defendant, and entered the above CBC in order to confirm the leakage of water due to the opening of 103 door, and the defendant entered 103 door prior to entering 103 door, or entered 103 door from the defendant to affix a photograph to 103 door, and confirmed that the defendant did not have any leakage while showing his photograph, and that the defendant is conducting the construction work.