The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence adopted by the court below, the court below was just in finding that the court below was guilty of intrusion upon residence and obstruction in the performance of official duties among the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, and there were no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the intention in the crime of intrusion upon residence, the presumption consent of the victim, the obstruction in the performance of official duties, and the legality of the act of assault

In addition, Article 232(3) and Article 232(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that a declaration of intent not to withdraw or punish a case in which a crime cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s explicit intent may be made prior to the pronouncement of the first instance judgment.

The Act stipulates.

According to the records, it can be known that the victim E expressed his wish not to punish a defendant is after the judgment of the court of first instance is rendered. Thus, the court below's failure to render a dismissal judgment on the charge of assault among the facts charged in this case is justifiable, and there is no error of law as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.