The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of the instant case, the Defendant had no intention to intrude upon the residence.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. At the time of the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant tried to return home after having confirmed 205, in the first place. Since the structure of the first and second floors was the same as that of the first and second floors, there was no intention to intrude into the residence, on the ground that there was no intention to intrude into the residence.

The argument is asserted.

B. In the relevant legal doctrine, the recognition of facts constituting an offense ought to be based on strict evidence with probative value that makes a judge feel true, beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof fails to sufficiently reach the extent that makes the aforementioned conviction, even if there is doubt of guilt, such as the defendant’s assertion or defense contradictory or uncomfortable dismissal, it should be determined in the interests of the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do1487, Apr. 28, 201).

In view of the fact that the Defendant had completed the inspection in the order of 202, 205, and 103 of the second floor among three factory rooms (Nos. 103, 202, and 205), the Defendant had an intentional intrusion on the Defendant’s residence at the time of the instant residential intrusion, taking into account the following: (a) the Defendant opened the door of 105; and (b) the Defendant opened the door after the opening of the door of 105; and (c) the victim’s statement was reversed when the reasons for entering the Defendant 105 are what the Defendant entered.

(d)

However, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the records and evidence, the facts charged that the Defendant committed the instant crime, which caused the victim’s residence intrusion intent, was proven without any reasonable doubt, that the Defendant committed the instant crime.

It is difficult to see, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Defendant’s assertion is with merit.

① This case.