If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

The defendant was a person operating the Taekwondo Chapter, and the victim C (the 30 years old, the 30 years old, and the 2-year old male-gu, and had recently been faced with the victim, and there was a complaint about the reasons why the defendant was associated with the victim.

1. On May 31, 2016, at around 01:00, the Defendant violated his residence, the Defendant divided the password, which was memoryd at the time of the past educational system, into the victim’s residence, and installed the correction device, and intrudes upon the victim’s residence.

2. Following paragraph 1, the Defendant damaged property by making the victim’s clothes held in the relevant dwelling place, the victim’s clothes, straws, and blicks, which are kept in the kitchen, straws, etc. on the bed, and making the blicks in his bath room unusable, and then destroying property in the market value.

3. Following paragraph (2) of this Article, at around 08:00 on May 31, 2016, the Defendant stolen property equivalent to KRW 3 million at the market price, including the Plaintiff’s total market price, where the victim’s residence was located inside of the victim’s residence, with a galloning of an amount equivalent to KRW 1,200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by the police with respect to C (the admissibility of evidence is recognized as unknown and special circumstances are recognized);

1. Data related to each relevant photograph;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on seizure records;

1. The pertinent legal provisions as to the crime, Article 319(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 366 of the Criminal Act, Article 329 of the Criminal Act, Article 329 of the Criminal Act, and the choice of fines [the Defendant] to the effect that there was no intentional intrusion upon residence.

However, the crime of intrusion upon a house is a de facto legal interest to protect the peace of a house, and if the act of entering a house is committed against the explicit or presumed intention of the resident or manager despite being contrary to the explicit or presumed intention of the resident or manager, the crime of intrusion upon a house is established (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do2595, Aug. 23, 2007). According to the evidence of the ruling