A. The Defendant’s act of defamation against Defendant A (misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of facts) is limited to the intent of public interest to inform the local residents of the unlawful act of Defendant B. Thus, illegality is excluded in accordance with Article 310 of the Criminal Act.

B) The Defendant related to the occupation of intrusion upon a house (hereinafter “instant house”) located in D at the time of the luminous name of the Gu resident of B (hereinafter “the instant house”) only requested a conversation by putting himself/herself in front of G heading door door, and there is no fact that he/she was entering the house B’s house with a new attack.

C) Recognizing the fact that the Defendant entered each structure listed in the facts charged, the fact that each structure was invaded by each building is recognized, but this is a place where entry by the public (at least tenants) is permitted, and the entry into the instant house E is intended to recover goods between the Defendant and the director, and thus there is no intention to intrude.

D) There was no assault against B in relation to each of the violences.

E) The Defendant related to the damage of property did not have any flag the instant house E-house visit to “X” as “X.”

Although there is a fact that the defendant locks in glass windows, etc., it is difficult for the defendant to view it as a director after the inconvenience of outside lighting of the building, there is no intention of damage.

2) The lower court’s sentence (7 million won in penalty) against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, misunderstanding of sentencing, and misunderstanding of legal principles) 1) The co-fluences of multi-household houses residing by misunderstanding of legal principles are always open, and the Defendant entered the co-fluences.

subsection (1) cannot be deemed as an act detrimental to the peace of residence.

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

2. Determination

A. Determination as to Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts 1) The following was examined, and the lower court duly adopted.