The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: F’s creditor, the owner of the instant loan, entered into a lease agreement on the instant loan for the purpose of securing the claim, completed the moving-in report; brought about D’s television and interest; brought about D’s television and cable television to March 2013; and managed D’s loan by means of automatic transfer from D’s account to D’s account; and in the investigation report on the auction case of the instant loan loan, D’s possession of D’s loan inasmuch as it was entered in the investigation report on the current status of the auction case of the instant loan loan, it can be acknowledged that D occupied the instant loan, and therefore, the lower court acquitted the Defendant, despite the fact that D’s intrusion upon D’s residence, erred by mistake of facts.

2. The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the sales market records, (i) around December 208, D entered into a lease contract with F, the owner of the instant loan, and completed the move-in report for the purpose of securing the claim; (ii) D entered into the instant loan agreement with F, the owner of the instant loan at around two months after entering into the lease contract, and (iii) entered into the instant auction agreement with D, such as confirming that C, while residing in the instant loan and failing to actually reside in it; and (iv) the Defendant moved into the auction agreement with D on December 9, 2008. However, in relation to the possession of real estate, it stated that “No time is available to know the possession of the instant loan because it did not take place at any time,” and (iv) the Defendant borrowed the address of D at the time of the instant transfer to D as of September 7, 2012 and January 7, 2013.