The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal did not change the identification number after the victim told the defendant to suspend the teaching system, and did not inform the defendant of it.

Although there was sufficient grounds to believe that the Defendant was denied access from the victim, the Defendant started to commit the crime of intrusion of residence because the Defendant entered the room of the victim and opened the room room in order to collect the password and open the door.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The judgment of the court below is based on the title "2. Judgment of the court below". The defendant and the victim, who are working in the same restaurant, knew of the entrance password while frequently entering the restaurant accommodation where the victim was living, and on May 31, 2019, the defendant retired from the above restaurant, and the victim notified the defendant of the judgment. However, on June 1, 2019, the defendant got out of the victim's house and returned to the beer and the beer. On the same day, the president of the restaurant E changed the password with the victim's consent, and the victim did not inform the defendant of the change of the password, and the defendant did not have any other evidence to prove that the victim had access to the house without the victim's consent because of the change in the password on June 2, 2019.