The defendant shall be innocent.

1. From October 2015, the Defendant and the victim C conspiredd with the annual relationship.

On February 2016, the Defendant continued to find the victim even after receiving separate notification from the injured party. Accordingly, the victim did not want to find the victim's room any longer and changed the number of directors at the same studio.

A. On March 1, 2016, the Defendant who intrudes upon a residence came to the studio of the victim C located in Daegu Northern-gu, Daegu-gu, about 10:00, with the knowledge that he did not send him to the studio, and is waiting to move out from the studio outside the studio, while the Defendant forced the victim to open the entrance to open the studio against the victim’s will, and after entering the ndudio, “Nea Africa”.

(p) is out of the territory of the Corporation.

At all times, if we do not compromise with the pagabonds at night, we will find it to the school in the Republic of Korea.

“Intimidatingly speaks.”

Accordingly, the defendant invadedd the victim's residence.

B. On March 1, 2016, at around 22:00, the Defendant attempted to intrude upon a house, she opened a entrance and opened it into a room, stating that “I would have a stude, if I would have a flue, flue, flue, flue, at several times,” and “I would have a flue, flue, if I would have a flue, flue, and flue, if I would have a flue. However, the Defendant failed to commit an attempted crime because the auxiliary locking device was

2. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that even though the defendant invadeds on the residence of the victim against the victim's will, the defendant and his defense counsel did not have any other relation to attempted crimes.

3. Determination

A. The Criminal Procedure Act adopts the substantial principle of direct deliberation and professional law that the formation of a conviction against the substance of the case in order to implement the lawful procedure required by the Constitution shall be conducted through the examination of evidence guaranteed by the cross-examination of the original evidence in the presence of a judge.

Therefore, the court shall make such substantial.