You will get no agreement because this is a cultural issue around what constitutes crime and whether there has to be criminal intent or serious harm. That depends on local beliefs.
Suppose I walk down your street and notice your door is open so I point it out to you. The next day I walk down your street again and see your door is shut but I'm not sure whether it's locked, so I try the handle. Am I doing right (looking after your interest by making sure your house is secure) or wrong (trying to open your door when it's none of my business)? The answer is cultural. In some countries that would be seen as being a good neighbour, and in others the owner would be entitled to shoot me down on the spot for interfering with his property. It's cultural.
It is my understanding he did not only test the door, but entered.
That, to me makes a huge difference ..... and yes might be a cultural thing, but having strangers (to me) not only test my security, but enter if possible, is not acceptable.
Yes he was a 'stranger' in so far as he was not approved to enter.
The case is complicated here because the student concerned has a foreign name and may well not be in his own country, and therefore might well have been brought up with different values from those in which the college exists. In such circumstances it is easy for actions and boundaries to be misunderstood. We don't know enough to form a judgement. We have to trust those on the scene to have taken relevant factors into account.
As I said earlier, there is too little information available to form a firm opinion .... I would not be inclined to jump either way because of that.