The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The court below rejected the statements of the victim E and F, which correspond to the facts charged in the case, and judged that the defendants had no intention to commit a residential intrusion, and sentenced the defendants not guilty. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged is as follows: (a) Defendant A, who was living in the vicinity of the Defendant’s mother-friendly D, did a dispute with the victim E (7 years of age), victim F (72 years of age), married couple and pents; (b) was injured by the said F; and (c) was punished by a number of legal disputes with the said F, such as being subject to suspension of indictment at the head office of the original district public prosecutor’s office; and (d) had a good appraisal against the victims; (b) Defendant A opened the door door door of the victims who did not rectify the said D without consent, in mind of warning the victims to prevent bullying in the future.

B. The lower court determined as follows based on the evidence duly adopted and examined: ① the parents and victims of the Defendants were living in adjoining areas for a long time at one boundary; the Defendants’ parents and victims suffered conflict with each other, such as the installation of a pents around October 2012; the Defendants warn the victims of their frighting DNA, warning the victims of their frighting DNA, and finding the victims’ house in order to avoid the victims’ water supply problems in the vicinity of the victims’ house; ② the Defendants divided the Belgium into the victims’ house; ② the personal phone at the victims’ house was not installed and can be confirmed only by voice without a monitor. The victims’ F takes part in the opening gate without checking who is the visitors. ③ The Defendants confirmed that the fright was the victims through the opening gate and the opening gate.