The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor was pronounced not guilty on the grounds that there is no proof of a crime regarding the search of room among the facts charged in the instant case. However, although it is sufficient to recognize the facts charged because the testimony made by I and H is reliable, the court below rejected the above statements without reasonable grounds, and as long as there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge the facts charged, the court below erred in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence

The lower court’s sentence against Defendant A and B (six months’ suspended sentence of imprisonment for each of six months) is deemed unhued and unreasonable.

On August 19, 201, Defendant A, B, and C searched the rooms managed by I, the managing director of the partnership, etc., by taking advantage of the following reasons: (a) Defendant A, B, and C, at the office of the G Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project Association in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul on August 19, 201; and (b) at around 15:00 on the same day, the “Notice of Holding Special General Meeting of Removal of Partnership Officers” received from H by the general director of the association at around 15:0.

As to the above facts charged by the lower court, the Defendants asserted that the Defendants searched with the permission of L, etc. as an agent for the president of the association, and that each legal statement of H, J and I, etc. presented as shown in the facts charged, cannot be believed in light of the following circumstances, and there is insufficient evidence alone to recognize the facts charged that the Defendants searched the office without permission.

The witness L, a person in charge of the partnership office at the time, appeared in this court and stated that there was no helper who searched the office or searched the office. Rather, the witness K, who was at the time, requested the return of documents by the Defendants, stated that L et al. would be annoyed, as the Defendants demanded the return of documents.