Defendant

All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. A. The prosecutor (1) The Defendant, misunderstanding the facts, committed a continuous intrusion with the victim and the Defendant on the loan of this case (hereinafter “the loan of this case”) entered in the facts charged. As such, the Defendant’s conviction against the Defendant on March 1, 2016 may be sufficiently recognized.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the facts charged is erroneous.

(2) The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (2 million won in penalty) is too unhued and unfair.

B. The lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the summary of the Defendant’s intrusion on March 1, 2016 among the charges of this case is that “the Defendant, around March 1, 2016, opened the entrance door correction device of the instant Dog-gu around 17:00, using Turkey and intruded on the said Dog-gu.”

Witness

According to D’s investigative agency and the court below’s statement, it appears that the Defendant had the Masky’s Turkey at the time, and that the Defendant had a good appraisal with the victim, as well as the Defendant’s own intrusion on the Ba of this case on February 28, 2016 and March 2, 2016. Accordingly, there is considerable doubt that the Defendant did not intrude on the Ba of this case even on March 1, 2016.

However, according to D's investigation agency and legal statement, the Defendant intruded on the instant lending on February 28, 2016, and changed the password of the present official door and the internal household, and the corrective device E was found to have been involved in the above corrective device. According to the investigation report (the 97 pages of evidence record) entered after hearing E's statement, E had been repaired twice in the instant lending, and at the first time, he re-established machinery to prevent existing mas Turkey from working in the current video phone.