The defendant filed an appeal against the guilty portion, and since all the defendants and the prosecutor did not appeal against the acquittal portion, the above acquittal portion is separated and confirmed as it is, the scope of this court's judgment is limited to the guilty portion of the judgment

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. While under the influence of alcohol, the Defendant was aware of the victim’s house at his own house and did not have any intention to intrude into the victim’s house.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (two years of suspended execution of imprisonment for six months) is too unreasonable.

3. Determination

A. The Defendant asserted the same purport in the lower court’s judgment as to the assertion of mistake of fact, and the lower court rejected the above assertion on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning.

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., the defendant's motion picture taken by the victim, i.e., the defendant does not enjoy a few minutes of the victim's house and continues to see the victim's house, and ii) the defendant was aware of the victim's house as his house. However, even the defendant's house house house is installed, and if the defendant has taken the house as alleged, it seems that the defendant naturally divided the defendant's seat number, if he had taken the house as alleged, it was naturally divided. However, the defendant's motion picture continued to take the front of the victim's house in front of the victim's house and returned to his house before the police is called back, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the charges is justified.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake is justified.