The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) determined otherwise by the lower court, even though the Defendant invadedd the public part of the building against the victim’s implied intent, and recognized the intent of intrusion upon residence.

2. In light of the statements made by the victim and the Defendant and the CCTV images, the lower court, based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, proven that the Defendant had intention to intrude into residence without reasonable doubt.

The lower court acquitted the Defendant of the instant facts charged on the ground that there is insufficient evidence to view it, and that there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is an error of law by mistake as alleged by the prosecutor.

shall not be deemed to exist.

The prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

According to CCTV images, the defendant can be found to have committed an act, such as entering another building or returning a way to another building. This corresponds to the defendant's defense that he had found a hotel building.

The Defendant, prior to the closeing of the victim, was the “helo” and the victim did not exercise the direct and indirect tangible power against the victim after opening the door.

In light of the aforementioned circumstances before and after the instant intrusion, there was an intentional act of the Defendant to intrude another’s residence.

It is difficult to see it.

3. The appeal by the conclusion prosecutor is dismissed.