The judgment below

The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Although the Defendant, in collaboration with or in collusion with B around 19:0 on June 7, 2013, intruded into or searched D’s residence or searched it, and on June 28, 2013, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact, thereby adversely recognizing the Defendant guilty.

Judgment

On June 7, 2013, around 19:00, the Defendant and the Defendant reported falsely to two police officers dispatched as if the accident occurred, on the ground that the victim’s residence in Gangnam-gu Seoul E (hereinafter “E”) 301 (hereinafter “E”). Around June 19, 2013, the Defendant and the Defendant reported falsely to the police officers as if the accident occurred, on the ground that the victim did not receive monthly rent or contact, and that the victim did not receive contact, the Defendant and the Defendant and the Defendant sent out the above 301 lock and have them open and open the lock.

Accordingly, the defendant invadedd the victim's residence jointly with B, and conspiredd to search the victim's residence.

On June 28, 2013, the Defendant violated the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint destruction, damage, etc.) and the Defendant and B damaged one digital lock amounting to KRW 150,000 at the victim D’s house as stated in the above paragraph (1) around 15:20 on June 28, 2013, in order to prevent the victim from entering the above house, the victim who did not pay monthly rent, had the contact officer use the above house entrance and damaged one digital lock amounting to KRW 150,00 at the market price, the victim owned by the entrance.

Accordingly, the defendant damaged the property owned by the victim in collaboration with B.

The court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged in full by taking account of the evidence in its judgment.

On June 7, 2013, the judgment of the court below on the joint residence and search of residence on June 7, 2013, based on the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, B’s legal statement presented as a witness, the defendant and B continue to be D after the end of April 2013.