Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

On May 17, 2014, in order to find the Defendant’s wife around 22:00, the Defendant opened the victim D’s house located in Namwon-si 708, and went into the closed door and intruded on the victim’s residence.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Partial statement of witness D;

1. Application of CCTV Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 319 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of penalties;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The grounds for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act for the order of provisional payment are as follows: (a) the Defendant has no other criminal records other than two times prior to a fine due to a violation of the Juvenile Protection Act; (b) the Defendant entered the victim’s residence to find his/her wife; and (c) the Defendant has taken into account the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, and environment, and other factors for sentencing indicated in

Parts of innocence

1. On May 17, 2014, in order to find the Defendant’s wife around 22:00, the Defendant: (a) opened an unsatisfy door-708 with the victim D’s house located in Namwon-si, Namwon-si; (b) opened an unsatfy door and intrude into the door; and (c) cut off the cash amount of KRW 5 million, which was contained in the door by opening an unsatisfy door-to-gate, and then cut off.

2. The Defendant denies the crime that no fact was found to have entered the victim’s residence to find his/her own children on the day of the instant case, or that no money was stolen by the victim.

However, there are statements made by the prosecution to the effect that the defendant was the confession made by the defendant, the victim's investigation agency and this court, and each of the following circumstances, which can be seen by considering the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, i.e., the defendant made a statement in the purport of confession at the prosecutor's office that he was about three million won in cash, but the victim stated that he was 5 million won in cash.