A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and two months.

Seized evidence 1 to 21 shall be confiscated.

A. Regarding the crime of a misunderstanding of facts in the judgment of the court below, the defendant entered the victim M's residence at the time, but did not enter the victim M's residence at the time of the time, and thus, the defendant's act may constitute an attempted residential intrusion, and it does not lead to the completion of the crime of a residential intrusion even if the defendant's act constitutes an attempted residential intrusion.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby finding the Defendant guilty of this part of the charges.

B. The sentence of unfair sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal by the Defendant ex officio, the Prosecutor changed the five of the facts charged in the instant case to “the victim’s residence was invaded, or attempted to intrude,” and the date, time and place of the crime in the No. 9 of the crime table II from April 12, 2016 to 15:00, “No. 711 of the L Building in Mapo-gu, Seoul, Mapo-gu, Seoul, 13:00 to 14:00, the Prosecutor opened a password on April 13:0, 201, and opened the 5 of the instant charges to “the victim’s residence,” and opened the 711st sentence of the Mapo-gu Seoul, Mapo-gu, Seoul, and opened the 2nd sentence to “the victim’s attempt to amend the indictment,” and opened the 711th sentence to “the victim,” and the 2nd sentence of the 7.1st sentence to “the 3rd sentence of the amendment to the indictment.”

3. Accordingly, the court below's decision is erroneous.