건조물침입
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor to the summary of the grounds for appeal, in particular, E’s investigation agency and the court below’s specific and consistent statements, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby finding the Defendant not guilty of the charges of this case, even though, although E had set the entrance door of the laund site in this case temporarily opened and intruded due to the preliminary heat in possession of the Defendant.
2. The key issue of the instant case is as follows: (a) the Defendant and E in the laundry at the instant laundry, who had a dispute over the settlement of deposit money, etc., and the Defendant first left before and after the Defendant got out, whether E was in the key to the laundry entrance.
However, in light of the following circumstances, i.e., ① the process of changing the statement, the contents of the statement that the defendant was aware of the possession of preliminary heat, and the contents of the agreement written by E, etc., it is difficult to believe that the statement in E investigation agency and the court of original instance consistent with the facts charged, and ② the F’s statement in the court of original instance that does not have any room for deliberation on credibility in light of the relationship with E, etc., corresponds to the defendant’s defense, the following additional circumstances revealed through records, i.e., (3) it is difficult to easily obtain the statement that the defendant first left the laundry after dispute, considering the defendant’s position that the defendant continued to engage in the business after delivery of the laundry in this case; and (4) the statement that the defendant submitted a civil lawsuit against the defendant only changed his key and did not appear to have been voluntarily opened with the preliminary laundry entrance.