The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. D who intrudes on the residence of the victim due to the gist of the grounds for appeal: (a) the police station requested the defendant to take photographs of the victim's residence; and (b) the defendant got into the residence for the purpose of photographing upon his request;

In light of the statement, the photograph taken on the day of the instant case, the background of the instant case, etc., the judgment of the court below that acquitted the Defendant on a different premise is erroneous and adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment, even though the Defendant instigated D and invadedd D’s residence.

2. Determination

A. On February 2015, 2015, the Defendant: (a) asked the Defendant to construct toilet water at the Defendant’s house located in Namyang-si, Namyang-si, 203, the Defendant: (b) stated that “On the completion of the water supply work, the Defendant would have the Defendant enter the Defendant’s house of the victim E, 103, and confirmed the water leakage and affixed a photograph of evidence; and (c) let the Defendant enter the Defendant’s house.”

On February 11, 2015, the Defendant: (a) had the said D enter the said victim’s house on February 11, 2015; and (b) abetted the Defendant into the said victim’s house.

B. The lower court determined that the Defendant entered the victim’s residence and gave a photograph of evidence to D.

D’s statement in the lower court is the sole evidence to prove that the Defendant had instigated, and D’s statement was 103 before entering the court of first instance to the effect that “the construction work of repairing sand in 103 U.S. L. L. L. L.C. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. C. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. 103, L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. 103

There was no 103 story from the defendant that she was affixed a photograph, and thereafter, it was confirmed that the defendant did not have any number by showing the photograph, and the defendant was so.