The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the testimony of the victim of the grounds for appeal and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the fact that the defendant intrudes into a place where he/she is in a new place in the victim's residence, can be acknowledged.

At least, the Defendant’s act of cutting off the entrance door and opening the door between the entrance door constitutes the commencement of intrusion upon residence due to an act detrimental to the peace of residence, and thus, the attempt to intrude upon residence can be established.

2. Determination

A. In a case where the appellate court intends to conduct a re-evaluation of the first instance judgment and ex post facto determination despite the absence of a new objective reason that may affect the formation of a conviction during the trial process, there is a reasonable ground to deem that the first instance judgment was clearly erroneous or that the argument leading to the acknowledgement of facts is considerably unfair due to the violation of logical and empirical rules, etc. Furthermore, without such exceptional circumstance, the appellate court’s determination of the first instance judgment should not be reversed without permission (Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031 Decided March 22, 2017). No objective reason exists that may affect the formation of a conviction, and it does not appear that maintaining the lower court’s judgment in light of the evidence duly adopted and the content of the lower court’s reasoning.

B. In light of the following facts and circumstances, which can be recognized by the court below’s duly admitted and investigated evidence regarding attempted intrusion upon residence, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is sufficient to recognize that the Defendant started an intrusion upon residence by walking the door of 801, as stated in the facts charged.