The defendant's appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance and the prosecutor's appeal against the judgment of second instance are all dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant’s appeal (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and misunderstanding of sentencing) 1) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to the judgment of the first instance court, the Defendant found the victim’s house together with theO upon the request of theO that “a person who does not leave the house without paying taxes,” and the O opened the victim’s house and entered the victim’s house before entering the victim’s house, and the Defendant followed the O.

The victim himself does not leave the defendant andO so that he does not enter and leave, and the defendant was engaged in flabing and spathing the flab of the defendant, and the defendant did not spawn the victim's clothes on the front chest, as shown in the facts charged in this case.

In light of the above circumstances, the Defendant did not have invaded upon the victim’s residence jointly with theO, and there was no violence against the victim, and even if the Defendant committed such act, the Defendant committed such act.

Even if this constitutes a legitimate act that does not go against social norms, the judgment of the court below 1 which convicted each of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentence of the first instance judgment on the sentencing of the sentence (700,000 won) is too unreasonable.

B. As to the prosecutor’s appeal (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles) against the judgment of the second instance court, the representative director of the corporation C (hereinafter “C”) at the time did not confirm that the Defendant was able to clearly verify this fact through a certified copy of the corporate registry, and that H did not confirm that he was 81 years old at the time. In light of the fact that H was the actual operator of C and the Defendant was delegated the transfer of C from H.

The first instance court, although it is not possible to see it, is around the other premise.