All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Error of facts or misapprehension of legal principles on the grounds of appeal (the defendant did not have a residential intrusion or a residential intrusion teacher) and unreasonable sentencing

2. The judgment of this Court

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the victim H acquired the ownership of the instant house and transferred the said house from I as the possessor on April 10, 2013, and thereafter, the victim took care of the said house on or after cleaning, drawing, and replacing the street, etc. to lease the said house, and the Defendants may recognize the facts of having entered or entering the said house as stated in the facts constituting the crime at the time of original adjudication under the circumstance of knowing the said facts. Thus, the judgment below which recognized that the Defendants instigated or infringed on the victim’s house possession, is just and there is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment due to misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension

Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion disputing this is rejected.

[In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined in the original trial, it is difficult to view that there is a reasonable ground to believe that the Defendants were able to enter the instant house for the exercise of the right of retention.]

B. In full view of the background and motive leading up to the crime of unfair sentencing, the method and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, and other various circumstances attached to the sentencing conditions, including the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, environment, etc., it is difficult to view that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable. Thus, the Defendants’ assertion on this issue is rejected.

3. Accordingly, the defendants' appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendants' appeal is without merit.

However, pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, each of the three-dimensional lines and four-dimensional lines of the lower judgment’s second and three-dimensional lines “by April 30, 2013” shall be deemed to be “by May 2013.”