A Pronouncement of sentence shall be suspended for A.

Defendant

B is not guilty.

1. On July 24, 2015, at around 13:25, Defendant A entered the legal office for the operation of the second floor victim B of the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E-building, into the victim’s office room through the entrance that was not corrected for the reason that Defendant A should receive the fees without the victim’s permission.

2. Defendant A entered around 14:10 on July 27, 2015 to the above place, and entered the victim’s home room by the above method.

3. Defendant A entered around 14:05 on March 22, 2016 to the above place, and entered the victim’s home room by the said method.

Accordingly, Defendant A intruded the room occupied by others respectively.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness B and F;

1. Each police statement made to B or F;

1. 112 Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the current status of report processing;

1. Relevant Article 319 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting a crime 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. Penalty fine of 300,000 won to be suspended;

1. Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act (100,000 won per day) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Article 59(1) of the Criminal Code of the Suspension of Sentence (the crime of this case is not limited to the degree of damage that occurred in the course of demanding an interview with an attorney-at-law, and various circumstances such as the age of the above defendant) of the Criminal Code (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision A and the defense counsel on the defendant's assertion that the defendant's act constitutes a justifiable act because it does not violate social norms. However, the defendant's act does not seem to be reasonable, and it should be complementary to the defendant's act that does not have

Therefore, it cannot be seen that illegality is excluded as a legitimate act that does not violate social rules.

Therefore, we cannot accept the above argument of the defendant and his defense counsel.

Parts of innocence

1. The facts charged against Defendant B is a case that he accepted from the victim A (n, 70 years of age).