Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against Defendant A and C and the judgment of the court of second instance shall be reversed in entirety.

Defendant

A. Fines.

1. The summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the case of Defendant A, B, and D, since the victim H was directly opening the door door at the time, it did not infringe upon the victim H’s intention, the above Defendants’ act does not constitute the element of the crime of intrusion upon residence, or since it does not constitute a legitimate act that does not violate social rules since it was entered the victim H’s house in order to care for his father, his father, and ② Defendant C was taking the situation outside the victim H’s house and did not enter the house. However, the court below found the Defendants guilty of this part of the facts charged, by misapprehending the legal principles, or by misunderstanding the facts on the grounds of appeal at the first trial date at the trial of the court of first instance, but in particular, as to this part of the grounds for appeal, it should be examined including the misapprehension of legal principles as to the unlawful act or legitimate act, etc.

There is an error affecting the judgment.

B. The court below convicted the above Defendants of this part of the facts charged based on the victim H’s statement, which was distorted and contradictory to the objective situation at the time, although Defendant B, D, and Defendant C continued to fighting at the time of the instant case, did not have any joint injury to the victim He. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(c)

Defendant B’s damage to co-property (the Defendants) was true, but Defendant A ordered the rest of the Defendants to damage the property, etc., the Defendants jointly wn up the door, sofet, sofet, sofet, table, table, table, and blick window, etc. owned by the victim H.