The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. When the accused intrudes on the victim's company, the summary of the grounds for appeal does not have any reason to implied the intrusion of the accused who is not an employee of the victim company when the C branch union members of the victim company commenced illegal strike, and the accused leaves from the victim company;

Article 10 of the collective agreement provides that "the company shall guarantee the entry of the person requested by the union, and limited to the office of the union's office at the time of accompanying the union." However, this provision should be interpreted as the condition that the union should first enter and leave the company and the union shall accompany the union. In light of the fact that the defendant did not follow the above procedure, the victim company did not have implied permission for the intrusion of the defendant, and there was a perception that the defendant would be against the intent of the victim company, and thus, the court below acquitted the defendant of the facts charged in this case. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Reviewing the reasoning of the judgment of the court below with the record and closely, the court below is justified in finding the defendant not guilty on the ground that the facts charged in this case constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime, and it does not seem that there was an error of mistake of facts as alleged by the prosecutor.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.