All of the appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the Defendants entered the victim’s new plant variety tamper and did not obtain the victim’s consent; and (b) even if the consent was obtained, the Defendants received the consent.

Even if the consent was made on March 24, 2015, which is on the day of consent, the court below acquitted the Defendants who entered the following day, despite the fact that they could recognize the intention of intrusion on a structure, there is an error of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles.

2. In full view of the evidence adopted by the lower court, the lower court found the following facts: (a) Defendant B was solicited to make an investment in the new seed-based business developed by the victim through G, and (b) the victim’s guide was made with G and H on March 2015; (c) Defendant B visited the Defendant A to attract the investment; and (d) asked on March 24, 2015, whether Defendant B visited the Defendant A to visit the seed-

Respondent and delivered it to Defendant B

H, using Defendant B’s office, also made a statement, that Defendant B visited Defendant B in the middle of March 2015, and then visited G again in the middle of March 2015, she would have to make an investment applicant and re-explored Hadi cultivation.

Calling to call.

On March 25, 2015, the Defendants acknowledged the fact that they visited the victim's turfy house.

In light of the above facts, the defendants confirmed the victim's intention through G and then visited the victim's right to grow her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her