beta
Text
The primary and ancillary facts charged against the defendant are all acquitted.
Reasons
Public Prosecutor's Office
1. On May 5, 2017, the Defendant: (a) opened a window that was not corrected in order to peep the inside of the reflect underground room (the first floor above the underground floor) in which the victim D (the age of 43) resides in Pyeongtaek-si, Pyeongtaek-si (the age of 43) around May 21, 2017; and (b) intruded the head into the dwelling by pushing the house.
2. On May 5, 2017, the Defendant: (a) opened a window that was not corrected in order to peep the inside of a half underground room (the first floor underground floor) in which the victim D (the 43 years old) resides in Pyeongtaek-si (the 43 years old), and the police officer who received the notification of the victim who tried to intrude into the victim’s residence, called out and attempted to do so.
Judgment
The intent of the crime of intrusion upon residence requires at least the perception that a part of the body enters another person’s residence (see Supreme Court Decision 94Do2561, Sept. 15, 1995, etc.). The crime of intrusion upon residence begins with specific acts for intrusion and begins with such intent, but there is commencement of the implementation of intrusion upon residence.
may be seen.
There is a statement by the victim that the defendant invadedd his head into a residence by pushing ahead of him, or carried a window with the awareness that part of the body as above enters another person's residence, and that she tried to open the window or opened and continuously scam a glass window, but the defendant committed an act to intrude upon the residence even if part of the body was a part of the body.
It is difficult to readily conclude that the statement by the witness E, who is a police officer directly witness of the defendant, alone, was carried out by the defendant's head to enter a part of the residence or take windows to intrude into a residence even if a part of the body is involved, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it without a reasonable doubt.
Thus, the primary and conjunctive charges of this case against the defendant constitute a case where there is no proof of crime.