The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On October 20, 2016, the Defendant was issued an order to protect the victim (hereinafter “order to protect the victim of this case”) with respect to the prohibition of access within 100 meters from the wife C’s residence and workplace in the divorce lawsuit from the Court of Gwangju to November 19, 2016.

Nevertheless, around November 2, 2016, the Defendant demanded that the first race be gathered and the front door of the fluence in Gwangju Mine-gu D be opened, in front of the fluence of C in Gwangju Mine-gu.

Accordingly, the defendant violated the victim protection order.

2. According to the evidence submitted by the public prosecutor, the defendant's act is recognized as having committed the same act as stated in the facts charged, and the defendant also recognized it. Thus, it appears that the defendant's act violated the victim protection order.

However, in full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the record, the Defendant committed the above act with intent to violate the Victim Protection Order.

It shall not be readily concluded.

In other words, despite the doubt of guilt, the facts charged have been proven without reasonable doubt.

It is difficult to see it.

① The time when the Defendant visited C’s house was within the time during which the interview was permitted between the children and the Defendant, and the Defendant argued that the time has been between C’s house in order to reach the children, since the investigation agency, the Defendant has been arguing that it was between C’s house in order to keep the children.

(2) The court has not separately decided on the specific method of implementing the above interview negotiation right (such as the place and method in which children take over and take over such children).

In other words, the court has not decided that the defendant should not visit C's house for the purpose of interview negotiation.

③ The Defendant sent letters to, or promised to contact, son in advance when she talks with son on the demand date for the interview negotiation, and there was no such contact on the day of the instant case.