The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles by misapprehending the legal principles on the judgment of not guilty, although the defendant's act of opening a door and opening a door and sound and opening a door was the commencement of intrusion upon residence.

B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (one million won in penalty) is too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination

A. In the case of a misunderstanding of the legal doctrine as to a crime of intrusion upon residence, if specific acts were commenced such as attaching a correction device entering the residence or opening a door, there was commencement of the crime of intrusion upon residence.

Therefore, it should be seen (see Supreme Court Decision 94Do2561 delivered on September 15, 1995). As to whether the Defendant started intrusion upon the Defendant’s residence in this case, the health stand, and even according to the facts charged in this case, the Defendant did not want to open a door favorable to the Defendant, or to open a door door to the victim, not accompanied by the door door. According to the evidence duly adopted and the court below's duly adopted, the video CD images sent back to the court below, especially after being reproduced at the first floor to lead the apartment building elevator in E apartment, the Defendant’s two door door was not the front door of the individual residence, and according to F’s police statement, the Defendant intentionally opened the glass door, but did not go against the victim’s own will, and the Defendant started infringing upon the victim’s residence. Thus, the Defendant’s act of infringing upon the victim’s house solely on the aforementioned circumstances.

It is insufficient to view it, and there is no other evidence to prove it.

In the same purport, the conclusion of the lower court that acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged is just and acceptable, and there is an error of misunderstanding of legal principles therefor.

§ 23.