All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of the legal principles (guilty part) entered each time and place of criminal facts, which obtained or obtained the consent of the victim.

In the absence of the victim, I think about it, and immediately left at the site.

The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, although the defendant's act of this case was conducted with the consent of the victim or without the awareness of illegality.

2) The punishment (one million won penalty) of the lower judgment that was unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles (not guilty part), although the victim did not have a wall in the boundary with the outside, he controlled the Defendant’s access through the CCTV and other physical facilities, and the Defendant was aware that the victim restricted his access, and thus, the instant church parking lot and the church conclusion are objects of residential intrusion.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted this part is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts and the misunderstanding of legal principles.

2) The punishment of the lower court’s unfair judgment in sentencing is too unfortunate and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the lower court’s determination as to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts and legal doctrine, the Defendant also asserted the same as the grounds for appeal, and the lower court rejected this and found the Defendant guilty of this part

In light of the following circumstances, the lower court and the first instance court consistently stated to the effect that the Defendant did not allow or consent to visit the date and time and place of criminal facts stated in the judgment, and that the Defendant tried to resolve the disputes arising from the sales contract between the Defendant’s punishment E and the victim.