All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the damage of joint property, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, including the Defendants and E’s dispute history with respect to the instant FY 206, and Defendant B, around February 2015, issued a summary order of KRW 1,00,000, by setting aside the same property damage and residential intrusion as the instant case, as well as the fact that the Defendants were issued a summary order of KRW 1,00,000, which was presented by the prosecutor, was aware of the circumstance that the locking device of KRW 206, which was removed by the Defendants, was newly installed by E.

Although it is reasonable to see this part of the facts charged, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. As to the intrusion of a common structure, L confirmed the ownership of the above 206 No. 206, but L did not have any particular authority over the above 206, as well as on the condition that the above declaration of intent to confirm ownership was made on reimbursement of certain expenses. In addition, the legal interests in the crime of intrusion of residence should be protected as E’s possession, not ownership, and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, comprehensively taking account of the evidence presented by the prosecutor, the Defendants recognized the circumstance that E was in possession and management of the F-No. 206.

Although it is reasonable to see this part of the facts charged, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles on the protection of legal interests in the crime of intrusion upon residence, which affected the conclusion

2. Determination

A. As to the damage of joint property, the lower court held that “The existing locking device is red and a new locking device installed by E is colored” was difficult to believe, and the remainder of the evidence alone (E installed a locking device).

It can not be readily determined, and even if established.

Even if the defendants are already installed, the locking devices, colors and shapes installed by the defendants are used.