The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the misunderstanding of facts and the misapprehension of legal principles (as to the acquittal portion), the Defendant’s statement that “the Defendant attempted to open the victim’s door is K other than himself/herself, and he/she gathers himself/herself by manipulating the police officer and evidence,” “the Defendant attempted several times to enter the victim’s house”, and the Defendant attempted to open the victim’s house through its windows. In light of the fact that the Defendant brought about the victim’s house and attempted to open the window, it may be recognized that some of the body of the Defendant was the victim’s house.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted on the ground that the intention of intrusion upon residence is not recognized, is erroneous in the misconception of facts.

2. Determination

A. The lower court rendered a judgment on the following grounds that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone does not recognize the intention of intrusion upon residence, and acquitted the Defendant.

In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the defendant and the victim are the occupants living in the same apartment building as the defendant and the victim are the occupants of the same apartment building. However, it is recognized that the defendant living in the 9th floor, the victim living in the 1st floor, the above apartment building is a so-called hallway-style apartment with a lot of partitioned apartment buildings on each floor, and the entrance and entrance of the entrance and entrance, the corridor part are common areas of the apartment owner, and the defendant living in the 9th floor tried to open the entrance and exit of the victim living in the 1st floor, such as the above facts charged.

However, the reason why the defendant found the victim is that the non-qualified person affiliated with the management office and the office of the above apartment is in exclusive charge of the urban gas opening business, and the defendant newly occupied the victim in order to find the evidence while continuing to be at issue.