Defendant A’s conviction is reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

Defendant .

A. As to the insult of Defendant A1) Defendant A, there was no fact that Defendant A made the victim E (hereinafter “victim”) the same remarks as indicated in this part of the facts charged.

B) On October 17, 2016, with regard to residential intrusion and obstruction of the exercise of rights, the victim, on the ground that he/she invadedd a house, the Gangnam-gu Seoul Building C and D (hereinafter “instant house”)

A) The instant house is no longer deemed a victim’s residence, and the instant house is no longer deemed a victim’s residence, and Defendant A did not enter the instant house only after having requested the key repairer to replace the key. Therefore, Defendant A’s act does not constitute a residential intrusion. As to obstruction of exercise of rights, it is difficult to deem that the victim did not reside in the instant house, thereby damaging the locking device. Although Defendant A made an incidental effort to return the deposit money to the victim, Defendant A did not immediately return the deposit money by refusing to receive it and did not intend to interfere with the victim’s exercise of rights. Accordingly, Defendant A’s act does not constitute obstruction of rights. The lower court’s sentence (3 million won) of unreasonable sentencing is unreasonable because it is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) The victim consistently stated that the forgery of a private document or the uttering of a falsified investigation document is a forged document in which he/she did not have any record in the facts charged (hereinafter “each of the instant documents”) from the investigative agency to the original trial.

Defendant

B argues that the lower part of “E” at the bottom of each of the instant notes was the direct statement of the victim, not the victim, but the result of the written appraisal is the penology of Defendant B.