The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged is that there was a dispute between the mother of the Defendant and the said victim regarding the return of the deposit for lease between the lessee who leased and used the first floor building of the victim D in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

On October 11, 2013, the Defendant taken photographs of and accused against the illegal structure of the building above around 11:00, and opened up to 3-storys through the stairs of the entrance door to the left side of the building above.

After unloading, to the second floor through the right entrance.

As an ombudsman, the victim's residence was invaded.

2. Although there are the witness’s legal statement and the police’s statement as to D, the witness E’s legal statement and the E’s written statement, the witness F’s legal statement and the police’s statement as to F, as shown below, each of the above evidence is inadmissible or difficult to believe it as it is, and the remaining evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize the above facts charged, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

First of all, among D and E's statements, the statement that "the statement that the defendant considered the building of this case" was made from F is merely a full statement. Pursuant to Article 316 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the full statement is admissible exceptionally only when the person making the original statement is unable to make a statement due to death, illness, residence in a foreign country, or any other reason, and the statement is made under particularly reliable circumstances. The protocol containing a full statement falls under the case where each of its admissibility can be acknowledged under Article 312 or 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and is exceptionally admissible in compliance with the above requirements under Article 316 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do171, Mar. 11, 2004).