Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

The defendant is a person who operates a used car trading company B.

The Defendant misrepresented himself as the representative of B commercial, and found D 202 of the Cheongju-si, which is the domicile of the Defendant, to find out the out-of-the-case case where 1 billion won was damaged by the heavy vehicle price to customers while serving as a dricker in his trading company, and the victim E (29 years and women) who was living in No. 203 of the same building (203) was dricked in the glass 203, and asked the victim C by leaving the phone with the cell phone of the victim. However, it is doubtful that the victim was flick but it was related to the victim’s house, and that the other F of the case where the victim had been working as an employee with the mind to confirm the victim’s house, and had the other F of the case where the victim had committed suicide before this b03.

“Around May 9, 2016, an emergency call call 112BB 119 had the victim report, and on May 21, 2016, the victim directly informed the 119 rescue unit called the victim’s home windows to open and enter the victim’s home windows, upon receipt of the said report, and caused the victim to intrude upon the victim’s residence.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each police statement made to E and F;

1. A further reply from witnesses prepared by G;

1. On-site photographs of buildings;

1. A copy of the statement of 112 reported case processing [the defendant knew by mistake C that he/she had no intention because he/she had entered the victim's residence, knowing that he/she had caused mistake;

However, as long as the defendant was aware that he invadeds upon another person's residence, the defendant's assertion does not obstruct the defendant's intentional act by disregarding the so-called "the mistake of a person".

Even if the defendant's assertion that the illegality is excluded by the legitimate act for the structure C of the defendant's argument, the following circumstances, i.e., the remote question that C committed suicide, which are acknowledged by the above evidence, need to be urgently needed.