[Trespass] Overturned a Summary Order Fine and Won Acquittal

A summary order becomes final if no request for a formal trial is filed within the prescribed period. Had the client failed to respond in time, the fine would have become final, leaving a criminal record for trespassing.

After closely reviewing the case records, the relationship between the two parties, and the customary manner and circumstances of the visit, LEAP concluded that the investigative agency's determination had not adequately reflected the specific circumstances surrounding the case. LEAP therefore promptly filed an objection to the summary order and requested a formal trial so the case could be reconsidered through regular trial procedures.

In particular, LEAP actively argued before the court that the mere fact that the client entered a password and opened the door could not, by itself, establish trespassing.

Immediately after taking on the case, LEAP drew on its accumulated experience and expertise to review the entire investigation record from scratch. Although a summary order had already been issued, LEAP did not defer to the existing investigative findings. Instead, it built a defense strategy by closely analyzing the applicable legal principles, the specific circumstances at the time of entry, and the process by which the client's statements had been recorded in the interrogation record.

① Pointed out flaws in the prior determination based on the Supreme Court's revised legal standard

LEAP first focused on the fact that the standard for determining what constitutes "unlawful entry" under the trespassing statute had been revised through a Supreme Court en banc decision.

Building on this Supreme Court precedent, LEAP closely reviewed and presented to the court related lower court rulings that found no criminal liability where a party had entered a residence using a door lock password learned while dating.

LEAP's central argument was that the entire process of entry should be examined as a continuous sequence, rather than isolating the single act of entering the password for separate evaluation.

② Reconstructed the sequence of events on the day of the incident in chronological order

LEAP meticulously reconstructed, in chronological order, the entire sequence from when the client visited the residence to when the door was opened and entry was made.

Through this process, LEAP concretely demonstrated that trespassing did not, in fact, occur.

③ Explained why the suspect interrogation record diverged from the actual facts

By analyzing the specific wording and question structure of the interrogation record, LEAP clearly demonstrated to the court that there was a discrepancy between how the record appeared and what actually occurred during entry.

④ LEAP called the cohabitant as a witness to confirm the entire sequence of entry in court

Through witness examination, LEAP actively argued that the client's entry did not violate the residents' will or disturb the actual peace of the residence, and therefore did not constitute "unlawful entry" under the trespassing statute.

By combining the revised Supreme Court standard, the detailed sequence of entry on the day of the incident, the circumstances under which the interrogation record was prepared, the communications between the parties, and the cohabitant's court testimony, LEAP fundamentally corrected the factual and legal basis underlying the summary order.