Supreme Court Confirms 1-Year Prison Sentence for 30s in 'Sillim-dong One-Room Burglary' Case... "Attempted Rape Not Proven"

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Hyung-min] The Supreme Court has upheld a one-year prison sentence for a man in his 30s who was charged with attempting to break into the home of a woman living alone in a residential area of Sillim-dong, Seoul.

The Supreme Court's First Division (Presiding Justice Park Jeong-hwa) on the 25th confirmed the original court ruling that sentenced Jo Mo (31), who was charged with violating the Special Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes (residential intrusion and attempted rape), to one year in prison.

The court recognized the charge of residential intrusion as guilty, but acquitted him of attempted rape, as in the original trial.

"There is no error in the original court's judgment that it is difficult to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant attempted to rape or sexually assault the victim after breaking into her residence but failed to complete the act," the court explained.

Jo was prosecuted for following a woman living in a one-room apartment in Sillim-dong, Gwanak-gu, Seoul, on May 28 last year, and attempting to break into her home.

Investigations revealed that on the day of the incident, Jo found the intoxicated woman, took a hat he had hidden under his clothes, put it on, and followed her about 200 meters to the one-room apartment. He then took the elevator to her floor and followed her to the door. When the door was closed and he could not enter, he lingered in front of the apartment for more than 10 minutes, trying to open the front door.

CCTV footage showing Jo’s actions on that day was released online, sparking public outrage.

The first trial recognized only the residential intrusion charge as guilty and sentenced Jo to one year in prison. It was judged that there was no clear evidence proving Jo’s intent to commit rape after entering the woman’s home.

The prosecution appealed the ruling, adding the charge of 'residential intrusion with sexual assault.'

However, the second trial upheld the first trial’s ruling with the same judgment. The court also did not recognize the additional charge of 'residential intrusion with sexual assault' added by the prosecution. The court stated, "The intent cannot be recognized solely based on the possibility that the result of rape could have occurred."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.