The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. The Defendant was aware of the facts charged in the instant case that the victim G (21 years of age, inn) and two women of H reside in the original room Nos. 102 of title 101, which the F Defendant resided in Changwon-si, and that he was able to find out the password of the entrance of the Pyeongtaek victims.

In addition, at around 03:30 on June 15, 2013, the Defendant: (a) opened a studio 102 entrance and intruded into the studio where the victim and the above H are locked while under the influence of alcohol.

The defendant continued to be off all his clothes that he had been suffering, and tried to have the body of the victim who was panty spanty spanty spanty spanty spanty and spanty spanty spans, and to have sexual intercourse with the victim who was divingd. However, what the victim spans spanss spant and sbucks the body of the victim, such as his chest and legs part, etc., and the victim smokes sbucked on the bridge, and discovered the defendant from the spans, and spand and spand the defendant, and reported to the police, etc., the above H did not bring about his intention and attempted to do so.

Accordingly, the defendant invadedd the victim's residence and tried to rape the victim who was unable to resist, but attempted to do so.

2. The facts charged in the instant case are premised on the Defendant’s intrusion on the victim’s residence. Therefore, in order to be found guilty of the facts charged in the instant case, the point of residence intrusion should be recognized first.

However, in order to establish the crime of intrusion, there should be awareness that a person enters a residence against the will of the resident. However, if a person enters a residence of another person by mistake recognizes his/her ex post facto mistake, but he/she remains in his/her residence, punishment for the crime of intrusion by omission is considered to be ex post facto objection.