A. The judgment of the court below is erroneous (the defendant A) and there is no specific means and method that the defendant A invadedd the victim's residence, and the defendant A possessed the house with D ground (hereinafter "the house of this case") around July 2012, 201, the defendant A did not have invaded the victim's residence. Thus, the defendant A cannot be deemed to have invaded the victim's residence.

Nevertheless, the court below found Defendant A guilty of the facts charged in this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

[Defendant B and his defense counsel asserted an unreasonable sentencing in the statement of grounds for appeal, and argued a mistake of fact that the locks were not destroyed on the date of the first instance trial. However, even if matters not included in the statement of grounds for appeal submitted within the lawful period for submission of the statement of grounds for appeal are stated in the appellate court, it cannot be deemed that there are grounds for appeal as alleged in the statement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Do1234, Sept. 22, 1998). Defendant B and defense counsel’s assertion of mistake of facts is not subject to a trial party, but can not find any grounds for ex officio investigation that could affect the judgment in finding Defendant B guilty of facts charged by the court below, considering the evidence

B. The sentence of unfair sentencing (defendant A: fine of 700,000 won, Defendant B; fine of 300,000 won) sentenced by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) As to Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts, Defendant A asserted that he continued to possess the instant house from May 201 to May 201, but considering the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the person who occupied and managed the instant house from July 201 to the police officer.