2013 Highest 2577 Insuasion

A person shall be appointed.

Pursuant to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles of free evaluation of evidence, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal

Attorney Park Jong-chul

October 10, 2013

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of the facts charged

A. On October 22, 2012, the Defendant: around 07, in the same building in the toilets of the building in the Jung-gu Postal Zone in Ulsan-gu.

When the victim B (Woo, 30 years of age) enters a toilet, he intruded the structure by bringing in the cremation room with a string door through a string door, which can be seen as thefting the inside, and ponding inside the toilet for ventilation.

B. On November 1, 2012, the Defendant intruded on a structure in the same manner as the preceding paragraph at the same place, around 15:

C. On November 17, 2012, the Defendant invadedd a structure in the same manner as the preceding paragraph at the same place, around 12, 2012.

2. Defendant’s assertion

When the defendant entered a toilet B, he did not have any fact that he was in the toilet which he was in B, and there was no fact that part of the defendant's body was in the inside of the toilet where B had been in B, and the defendant merely sited in a son or a son in a place far away from the toilet door, and it is difficult to view it as constituting an intrusion into the crime of intrusion. At the time, the defendant was at the time.

It can not be seen that the location of being seated is a summary of the toilet of this case, and it cannot be deemed that it constitutes a room, which is the object of the crime of intrusion.

3. Determination

Without the need to further examine whether the Defendant had seen the direction of the toilet view, the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize the fact of intrusion into the toilet (including the above summary) in which the Defendant had placed B, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, each of the facts charged against the defendant in this case shall be pronounced not guilty in accordance with the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act where there is no proof of crime.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Or Dong-dong