beta
Text
Defendant
Innocence.
Reasons
1. The summary of the facts charged is the relationship between the victim C (50) and the two years prior to the filing of the charge.
Around 00:45 on February 24, 2017, the Defendant: (a) sent a door to the victim’s house located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul; (b) the victim sent the Defendant out of the door, but went out of the wall, and invaded upon the victim’s residence.
2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, there was an express agreement between the Defendant and the victim to liquidate the living relationship between the Defendant and the victim and to live in the instant dwelling area.
It is difficult to see that the defendant was completely relieved from the community life operated in the present residence.
It is insufficient to conclude that there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and there is no intention to infringe on a residence by the defendant.
It is also difficult to see it.
① The victim found the Defendant in the instant residence on the day of the instant case in this court, laid the front door, prevented the Defendant from entering the house, and then released the Defendant out of the main gate, and opened the gate, and the Defendant went out of the wall.
was stated.
However, in light of the fact that the victim did not have made the above statements in the investigative agency, and that the victim stated the victim's above statements at the last time in the questions repeated after reconcing several times in this court, it is difficult to believe the victim's above statements as they are.
② On the day of the instant case, the victim stated that he was the victim of the instant case two years before the Defendant and the investigation agency.
However, in light of the circumstances in which the Defendant entered into a water purifier and air clean rental contract in the instant residential area under the name of the Defendant, as well as the circumstances in which the Defendant entered into an Internet subscription contract under the name of the Defendant’s father.