The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In order to verify whether or not measures to access access to the Defendant were taken in E with respect to the infringement of residence, and the date is prior to the occurrence date of the instant case, it is necessary to make a statement by the representative of the above center H who notified the Defendant of the measures to limit access. According to the statement of the witness’s absence prepared by H, the court below found the Defendant not guilty of the infringement of residence among the facts charged in the instant case, and erred by misapprehending the fact that the Defendant was subject to the measures to limit access at the above center prior to the occurrence date of the instant case, and by

B. The judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of special intimidation among the facts charged of this case, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles and erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, although G’s statement favorable to the Defendant is not consistent or bad, and it can be acknowledged that the Defendant threatened F, based on F’s statement, video photograph, etc.

2. Determination

A. Summary of the facts charged 1) The Defendant who intrudes upon a residence is prohibited from entering the area due to the removal from E located in the D market located in Gwangju City around December 24, 2014.

On January 12, 2014, the Defendant: (a) around 20:40 on January 12, 2014, entered the victim F (F, female, 26 years of age) to the above E, and invaded into the victim’s residence through the open entrance.

2) The Defendant, at the time and place specified in the foregoing paragraph 1, uses a knife knife, which is a dangerous object, on the ground that the Victim F reported the Defendant’s intrusion to the police, and uses the knife knife to the victim, etc.

C. The victim threatened the victim by stating that he/she would die.

B. The lower court’s determination 1) As to the intrusion upon residence, the lower court held that ① the Defendant et al. resided in a usual and free place, and that E was from a person with legitimate authority.