The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Defendant A, in the facts charged, the victim 1) C (6), the owner of a bridge used by the Defendant, the victim 2) D (24) is the victim of intrusion into residence, the witness E (38 tax, remaining) is a person who arrests the Defendant and has no relationship with him.

A. The Defendant, on March 13, 2017, stolen: (a) 19:20 on September 13, 2017, the victim C, who was installed in a restaurant G adjacent to the restaurant located in F, without any corrective device, was stolen by carrying out a private bridge of 60,000 won or more at the market price.

B. Around 19:34 on September 13, 2017, the Defendant affected the peace of the residence of the victim 2) by means of going up to the second floor of the D’s building, using a shooting bridge owned by the victim 1) that was stolen from “A” to “A” (the victim 2).

2. Determination

(a) Where a thief uses another's property without the consent of the possessor without permission, if the use of the property itself is so consumed as to considerably the economic value of the other's property, or has dumped it in another place than its original place, or has an intention to infringe on the ownership or principal right, in a case where the use of the property is identical

In light of the intention of illegal acquisition, however, if the consumption of the value of the use is insignificant and the return is the same as that of the return immediately after the use, there is an intention to infringe on the ownership or the right of origin.

It is reasonable to deem that the intent of unlawful acquisition cannot be recognized as being impossible (see Supreme Court Decision 92Do118, Apr. 24, 1992, etc.). Under such a legal doctrine, the health unit and records are as follows. In other words, the Defendant appears to be merely a temporary use of the instant bridge without the consent of the victim C in order to get a mother and child suffering from the instant building at the time.