All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the court below found the Defendants guilty of the facts charged in this case, but found the Defendants not guilty. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendants operate “C agency”.

At around 22:00 on May 18, 2015, Defendants: (a) did not pay KRW 33,600 to the victim E (e.g., 31 years of age) residing there; (b) parked on the front road of the victim’s house before the victim’s house; (c) knew that the victim was her home who was waiting to return home; (d) was her home, the victim was able to return home; and (e) invaded the victim’s house jointly with the victim’s house, such as the victim’s house entrance, the entrance was dived several times, and knife the knife.

B. The lower court determined that the crime of intrusion upon a house as prescribed by Article 319(1) of the Criminal Act refers to the act of entering into a house against the will of a resident, i.e., physical intrusion; however, stairs and corridor used for public use in a multi-family housing, such as a multi-household apartment house or multi-household apartment house, may be deemed as constituting a "human habitation", which is the object of the crime of intrusion upon a house; however, in this case, the Defendants had access to the house in which the victim was living in order to deliver the milk, and for that reason, even if the stairs for common use was approved by the victim, it can be deemed as an area where the victim consented to the entry. Accordingly, even in order to collect the milk from the damaged person who did not pay the milk, the victim's explicit or presumed consent to entry.