The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the crime of intrusion upon residence, the intention is sufficient if the perception that the residence was entered against the will of the person who was living.

The inside of the instant apartment 201 joint entrance does not generally open, but is permitted only by the persons who have obtained the consent of the person who has obtained the consent of the resident. Since the Defendant obtained a password from F without having obtained the consent of the victim and entered into the joint entrance with the inside of the entrance, the method of intrusion itself should be deemed to go against the victim’s will.

The defendant was aware of the fact that the entry into a common view is against the will of the victim, and therefore there was an intentional intrusion on the defendant's residence.

B. In addition, since the inside of the above joint view is not generally open, the defendant did not have the purpose of crime.

Even if the defendant's commencement of the crime of intrusion on residence is recognized, it should be recognized.

(c)

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the charged facts of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

2. Determination

A. The prosecutor changed the indictment to the indictment that the court below found the defendant not guilty on the grounds that the facts charged in the instant case were the primary charges, and the "Attempted attempt to intrude into residence" in the name of the crime in preliminary charges, and "Articles 322 and 319 (1) of the Criminal Act" in the applicable law, and "Article 322 and 319 (1)

C. 1) An application for permission to amend a bill of amendment was filed to add “the ancillary charge” as stated in the Paragraph (1), and this Court permitted this.

B. On July 9, 2015, the Prosecutor’s argument regarding the primary facts charged is based on the misapprehension of the legal principle as to the prosecutor’s primary facts charged 1) The Defendant’s primary facts charged 201 unit of E apartment house in which the victim D residing in Macheon-si C around 10:56 around July 9, 2015 and 1 hour before the victim’s children attended the kindergarten like the victim’s children, to resist one another.