The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. On November 2014, the Defendant did not without permission in the house of the victimized person, including E, from November 2014.

The work workers, upon entering the victim's house into the defendant's house, went out of the victim's house after receiving the victim's husband's G's claim, and he entered the victim's house with the knowledge that the defendant sought an understanding on entry into G, and again entered the victim's house.

B. In addition, the Defendant did not enter the victim’s house as soon as he/she entered the victim’s house with F on March 10, 2015.

The defendant removed part of the defendant's house fence, and only difference between the defendant's house fence and the boiler tree.

(c)

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted all of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in finding facts.

2. Determination

A. On November 2014, the lower court also asserted the same purport as the allegation in this part of the grounds for appeal.

The lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion on this point by determining that this part of the facts charged is recognized based on the comprehensive consideration of the circumstances set forth in its reasoning.

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

1) According to the statements of the victim (D) and G, around the beginning of November 2014, G made a claim against the Defendant regarding intrusion upon residence, and G said, “If the Defendant did not go through a gate, it may be understood that he did not come into the house of the victim without permission, but it was erroneous for the Defendant to go into the house of the victim.” (Article 44, 53 of the record of trial, Article 2 of the evidence record No. 2 of the evidence No. 53-54 of the record). Unlike the Defendant’s assertion, the victim’s side locks at the time.