The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On April 14, 2015, the summary of the facts charged: (a) around 19:00, the Defendant entered the house through the entrance door to the victim’s residence without the victim’s permission in order to resist that the victim made a speech to the effect that “the victim would not install containers in the village development zone” was at the house of the victim D (65:00).

2. The defendant in the board shall consistently deny that he does not enter the victim's office from an investigative agency to this court;

In a criminal trial, the conviction shall be based on evidence with probative value sufficient to cause a judge to feel true beyond a reasonable doubt, and if there is no evidence to establish such a degree of conviction, even if there is suspicion of guilt against the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do11591, Feb. 14, 2013). In addition, it is consistent only with the statements made by the E investigative agency and this court, which correspond to the facts charged in the instant case, with the direct evidence, there is only the statements made by the defendant inside the report room, and it is consistent with the specific circumstances, such as whether the defendant was at the time, whether there was any sound, whether the visit was made by the defendant, and whether there was a visit by the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do1591, Feb. 14, 2013).

However, since the Defendant’s entry into the house is only the first visit, the Defendant’s statement should be consistent as to whether there was a sound to open the door, and whether the Defendant opened the door to door. In addition, the statement made in D’s investigation agency and this court is nothing more than the evidence that stated the contents to E as to the above facts charged, and it is not admissible as evidence.