[2018 High Court Decision 69] The Defendant, on September 16, 2017, did so to the victim of the sexually friendly job offering who was employed before the Seo-gu Daejeon apartment C on September 16, 2017.

In order to see sound, the door is opened, and the height of the entrance electronic number is divided, but the victim attempted to have attempted to open the door.

2. In a judgment in a criminal trial, the facts constituting a crime must be found based on strict evidence of probative value, which makes a judge not to have any reasonable doubt. Thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof does not reach the extent that the prosecutor is not able to have a sufficient conviction, there are circumstances, such as whether the defendant’s assertion or defense is contradictory or unreasonable, and whether the defendant’s assertion or defense is doubtful or not exists.

Even if the interests of the defendant should be judged.

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances admitted by the evidence duly admitted and examined, it is insufficient to recognize each of the facts charged in this case that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone, as stated in the facts charged, was destroyed or damaged by the victim's entrance as a fire extinguishing machine on September 10, 2017, or that the height of the entrance electronic number was divided on September 16, 2017 to intrude into the victim's residence against the victim's will, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

The Defendant returned to the victim for more than three years, and was living together in the C apartment site in E around August 2017, and did not secure the current door password from the victim. However, the Defendant transferred KRW 10 million to the account of the victim while living together with the victim through the victim’s permission for entry whenever necessary.