The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the fact-finding) is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts in the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case, even though the Defendant knew of the victim's explicit objection, and infringed upon the victim's residence against the aforementioned contrary intent.

2. Determination

A. On October 1, 2013, the Defendant: (a) around 23:50 on October 23, 2013, the summary of the facts charged was divided into the first race, on the ground that the victim D (at the age of 53) was attending the Defendant’s sports dance institute, and that the victim would be followed by the victim D (at the age of 53) who was attending the Defendant’s sports dance institute.

Accordingly, the victim had known that he had been friendly, opened the entrance, and opened the entrance to the living room, and intruded the residence of the above victim.

B. The judgment of the court below 1) based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court of the original instance. ① The defendant and the victim knew about 7 to 8 years, ② the victim knew about 7 to 5 years before the day of the instant case, ② The victim was a party E, son F and mother who are the party to the instant case, but the defendant was at home and sent her time to the above person and restaurant because she was not inside, ③ the defendant sent her door to her house, ③ the victim sent her door to her door to her house, ④ the defendant opened the victim's house to her house, ④ the victim requested her house to come into her house on the ground that she was admitted to her house. ④ The victim demanded her house on the ground that she was her house to her house. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant and the victim claimed that she was right and wrong after her claim to her home, but the mother seems to have opened the door to her own view.