However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The defendant committed the following crimes with disabilities of class 66 intellectual disability in intelligence index and lack the ability to discern things or make decisions.

1. On August 21, 2019, the Defendant, at around 10:00, entered the victim’s residence without permission through the entrance door, which was opened by the victim’s body in Gangnam-gu Seoul, where the victim’s house repair work was installed, without correcting the entrance door, and without permission, intrudes the victim’s house repair work on the part of the victim’s house.

2. The Defendant intruded into the above date, time, and place, searched the victim’s room possessed by the victim by searching her clothes in his/her house with his/her her her her son with his/her her her her her son with his/her her her her son, and searching her panty used by the victim’s her son, who was in his/her her son or her son.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation records before judgment

1. Relevant Article 319 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 321 of the Criminal Act concerning facts constituting an offense (the points of intrusion upon residence, the choice of imprisonment) and Article 321 of the Criminal Act;

1. Articles 10(2) and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for mitigation of mental illness and injury (in full view of the investigation before the judgment of the Seoul Probation Office and reply and the words and actions in the court, it is appropriate to deem that the Defendant was in a state where he/she had the ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of committing the instant crime)

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act to increase concurrent crimes;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, and Article 44-2 of the Medical Treatment and Custody Act, once again led to the crime of this case, even though the defendant had a criminal record of punishment due to the same kind of crime committed by intrusion upon residence three times (one suspended execution, a single fine, and a single sentence).

The defendant was unable to receive suspicion from the victim.