Therefore, although the facts charged in this case are found guilty, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The prosecutor bears the burden of proving the criminal facts prosecuted in a single criminal trial, and the conviction shall be based on the evidence of probative value, which makes the judge sure that the facts charged are true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is suspicion of guilt against the defendant, the interest of the defendant should be determined (see Supreme Court Decision 94Do3309 delivered on April 12, 1996). The court below, based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor in detail, intended to intrude the victim's house.

The instant facts charged were acquitted on the ground that it cannot be determined as a person.

In light of the records, the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below was proved to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt as to the charge that the defendant was aware of the victim's house with the sole evidence submitted by the prosecutor, and that the charge that the defendant attempted to intrude into the victim's house was proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt.

It is difficult to see it.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case does not seem to have violated the law as alleged by the prosecutor.

3. If so, the prosecutor's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.