beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. According to the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor (misunderstanding the facts), it is recognized that the Defendant invaded a victim D’s farm in Ansan-si C on June 23, 2016 into a container used as a residence by the victim D.
Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. On June 23, 2016, the Defendant: (a) around 21:15, the victim D’s farm located in Ansan-si C was front of a container used as a residence by the victim D (hereinafter “instant container”); and (b) previously, the victim memoryed the entrance door and opened a container door using the key, and intruded the victim’s residence.
3. Determination
A. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged on the ground that it is difficult to recognize that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone, in light of the following circumstances, was insufficient to recognize that the Defendant went to the instant container against the victim’s will or the Defendant had intention to intrude into his residence, beyond a reasonable doubt, even though the Defendant found the key at the place where the victimized person concealed the key as indicated in the facts charged.
① From the investigative agency to the lower court’s trial, the Defendant consistently stated to the effect that “The Defendant, at the same time on the day of the instant case, went to the farm where the instant container was installed by drinking alcohol with the victim and drinking alcohol together with the Defendant, and went to the farm where the instant container was installed, and she saw it as a container, and she saw it as a container near the instant container.” The Defendant consistently stated to the effect that “The Defendant opened the container door first by finding the key at the place at which the victim was lower than the victim did not appear, and opened the container door first.”
(2) The aggrieved person is the original judgment.