The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case was around 13:25, March 10, 2016, at the time of Jinju-si D’s house, and the Defendant opened the entrance door in an irregular manner to enter the house through the entrance door, and attempted to intrude into the residence of the victim, but the Defendant did not enter the house with the wind back to the house and attempted to commit so.

2. Determination

A. In a criminal trial, the burden of proof for the facts constituting an offense prosecuted is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction is to be based on the evidence of probative value that makes the judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, even if there is a suspicion of guilt against the defendant, it shall be determined with the benefit of the defendant.

(see Supreme Court Decision 201Do7261, Nov. 10, 201). Meanwhile, the crime of intrusion upon residence may be deemed to have commenced if a specific act exists for the purpose of intrusion, such as attaching a correction device entering a residence or opening a door, which is protected by the law of the peace of the actual residence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Do2561, Sept. 15, 1995). Thus, in order to recognize an attempted crime of intrusion upon a victim’s residence, an actor must prove the commencement of the specific act of intrusion upon the victim’s residence without any reasonable doubt.

B. The evidence consistent with the facts charged in the instant case is that the victim D's statement as a witness in this court, each statement in the victim's investigative agency, and CCTV video photographs (as stated in title 10 of the Investigation Records) can be seen as evidence.

However, considering the statements made by the victim under this law and the investigative agency, when the victim went back to 302 of the studio of this case, his residence, and returned again, 302.