The legitimacy of recognizing the fact of intrusion as long as there is a possibility of intrusion

The fact finding that the fact that the victim's booms around the two parts can only be inferred that there is a possibility that the defendant may destroy the locks and intrude into the locks, but the fact finding that the defendant violated the rules of evidence is erroneous in the rules of evidence.

Article 307 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 331(1) of the Criminal Act

An applicant for concurrent Office of the Defendant

Defendant and Appellant for Custody

Attorney Kim Jong-tae

Daegu High Court Decision 83No474, 83No112 delivered on June 7, 1983

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the records, if the evidence of the first instance court is examined, it is acceptable to accept that the defendant was sexually in the vicinity of the box of the management of the non-indicted profits deliberative council at the time of the prosecution, even though it cannot be readily concluded that the defendant destroyed the locks of the double-door entrance and intrudes into the double-door, it can only be said that the defendant might destroy and intrude the locks, and that there is a possibility that the defendant might destroy and intrude into the locks. Thus, the above judgment is erroneous in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence and without any evidence, even though the judgment of the court below did not contain any error of law by pointing out facts against the rules of evidence, it shall be deemed that the court below supported the first instance judgment and dismissed the defendant's appeal, and therefore, the judgment of the court below shall not be maintained with merit.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and remanded, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all Justices involved.

Justices Jeon Soo-hee (Presiding Justice)