Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous.

2. In full view of the circumstances revealed through the evidence duly adopted and examined, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged of the instant case on the ground that the evidence alone presented by the prosecutor alone was insufficient to deem that the fact that the Defendant had intentionally infringed on the room or damaged property was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

In light of the circumstances indicated by the court below and the following circumstances revealed through the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., ① there is no evidence to support the situation that there was a motive for the victim to intrude into the room occupied by the victim at the time of the instant case or damage to the victim’s property on the record, ② the residents were relatively free and frequent in terms of the characteristics of the instant public notice, and the Defendant was working as the manager of the instant public notice hostel at the time of the instant case, and thus, it is difficult for the Defendant to evaluate the situation as a ethical or unfair act by entering the room of the victim who did not appear in the public notice teleth for a considerable period of time, ③ the Defendant was under the direction of the victim E, who entered the victim’s room, and was unable to deem that the direction of E was clearly unlawful in light of the situation at the time of the instant public notice, the court below was justified in finding the Defendant guilty of the facts charged, and thus, the prosecutor did not err by misapprehending the facts of the judgment below.