A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding the legal principles, the court below acquitted the Defendant on this part of the facts charged, although the Defendant could sufficiently acknowledge the fact of intrusion upon the victim’s residence against the victim’s explicit or presumed intent. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles.

2) Improper sentencing of the lower court is deemed unreasonable.

B. Defendant 1) The lower court convicted Defendant 1 of this part of the facts charged, although it did not constitute a crime of property damage since the Defendant destroyed the Defendant’s parent-owned article. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2) The lower court’s improper sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On July 11, 2016, the Defendant sought for the following reasons: (a) around 19:40 on July 11, 2016, on the part of the facts charged, on the ground that the Defendant would visit the victim’s home of the victim D (the other, 90 years of age) (the other, the other, and the other, the other) who was a child-friendly-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child relationship.

2) The lower court’s judgment based on the following circumstances, i.e., (i) the Defendant had access to the victim’s house from time to time before the date of the instant case, and (ii) the Defendant opened the door to E at the time of the instant case, but went beyond the wall as E did not hear it, and (iii) the Defendant voluntarily stated in this court that “a voice to open the door would open the door, to make the door,” it is difficult to readily conclude that it goes against the victim’s explicit or presumed intent solely on the ground that the Defendant entered the victim’s residence beyond the wall.”