However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

On August 25, 2011, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of three million won for an indecent act by force by the Seoul Northern District Court on August 25, 201, and on July 7, 2011, the Seoul Central District Court rendered four times the same criminal records, including a summary order of 1.5 million won for an indecent act.

Criminal facts

On September 16, 2017, the Defendant, at D located in Pakistan-si, in which the Defendant resides, had a mind to commit rape and intrude into 412, with a view to having the victim E residing in the same accommodation 412.

On September 16, 2017, at around 05:48, the Defendant: (a) opened a door-to-door with the third floor of the Defendant’s residence through stairs; (b) intrudes into the residence of the victim; (c) opened a door-to-door with the victim’s house; (d) opened a door-to-door door-to-door in 05:50; and (e) intrudes into the victim’s residence; and (e) opened a door-to-door door-to-door door-to-door door-to-door in 412; and (e) intrudes the victim’s residence by entering into 412.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement of the E police statement;

1. In relation to the internal report (CCTV);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning report on internal investigation and photographic data;

1. Relevant Article 319 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 319 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

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

1. Article 62(1) of the Criminal Code of the Suspension of Execution (in consideration of the intent of the Defendant’s intrusion upon the residence, the nature of the crime is not very good.

However, in fact, it seems that there was no violence or intimidation, and considering that the defendant appears to be against the purpose of intrusion when he/she made a confession about the purpose of intrusion.