A. The victims of misconception of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles enter the office of victims by opening the present door, and there is no intention of entering the office of victims.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the Defendant’s each fine of one million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendants asserted the same as that made at the appellate court, and the lower court found the Defendants guilty of the facts charged in this case on the grounds that: (a) there is credibility in the statement of C, C, and D concerning the fact of damage; and (b) C or D cannot be deemed to have entered the house by opening the entrance door as alleged by the Defendants; and (c) a thorough comparison with the above judgment of the lower court, the lower court’s judgment is acceptable, except for adding any judgment below, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts or misunderstanding legal principles as alleged by the Defendants, and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. (b) Defendant B stated in the investigation agency that “I am under the command of the lower court that I am under the command of the Defendant “I am under the opening of the lock door at the front of the two drick entrance,” and Defendant A opened the entrance door at the investigative agency, “I am under the opening of the entrance and the door “I am under the opening” with the husband.

(Evidence Records 51 pages) In addition, the defendant A written that the shot application submitted to the investigation agency was written as follows:

(Evidence Records 77 pages). According to the Defendants’ statements, locking devices have been sounded inside the entrance, and this is the sound of the belt.