The defendant shall be innocent.

Around August 21, 2019, the Defendant was issued a provisional protection order (hereinafter referred to as the “provisional protection order of this case”) with a content that “a victim’s residence and place of work shall not exceed 100 meters prior to the victim’s decision on a victim’s protective order,” which read, “a victim’s handphone or e-mail address shall be ordered not to transmit marks, text, sound, or images by wire, wireless, optical, or other electronic method.”

Nevertheless, around 12:00 on August 28, 2019, the defendant changed the password of the correction device installed in the front-gun C Apartment D, the domicile of the victim, and entered the victim's residence.

Accordingly, the Defendant did not comply with the provisional protection order of this case even though it was ordered to do so.

Judgment

According to Articles 63(1)2 and 55-4 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Crimes of Domestic Violence, which is the applicable provisions of the facts charged of this case, the facts charged of this case is premised on the premise that “the defendant has already received the temporary protection order of this case before entering the victim’s residence.” The evidence submitted by the prosecution alone is insufficient to acknowledge the above premise, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

Thus, the facts charged against the defendant constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.