A. Defendant A1) The victim’s residence did not contain a gate and Belgium, and in order for a person visiting the house to teach a person inside the house or visit the house, he/she must enter the house and leave the house in a way that he/she saws a person in front of the entrance. As such, the Defendant did not enter the victim’s house, and did not enter the victim’s house into the front door. Thus, the Defendant did not infringe upon the residence.

B) At the time of the instant case, the Defendant committed an intrusion upon residence.

Even if the victim F was able to hear the statement that the victim F was the defendant to stop working on board and to verify the truth, it is an act that does not violate social rules.

C) Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine that found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The lower court’s sentence (an amount of KRW 300,000) against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) In fact, the Defendant did not enter the door door of the victims, but stayed outside of the entrance, and thus, the Defendant did not intrude upon the victims’ residence. At the time of the instant case, there was no intention to intrude the Defendant’s residence.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The lower court’s sentence (an amount of KRW 300,000) against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment as to Defendant A’s misapprehension of the legal principles and Defendant B’s assertion of mistake of facts

A. The lower court also argued to the same effect as the grounds for appeal, and the lower court convicted the Defendants of the instant facts charged on the following grounds.

1) As to whether Defendant B entered the victims’ residence.