A. The Defendant: (a) in a situation where the victim, who was a guest, was unaware of his house, opened the first visit and entered the second visit to the effect that the victim would demand money; and (b) the victim first opened the second visit to the effect that he would leave the house; and (c) in light of such circumstances and process, the Defendant did not have an intention to intrude another’s room.

B. In light of the legal principles, even if the defendant's intention of intrusion is recognized, the defendant's act constitutes a justifiable act that does not go against the social norms, and thus, is not unlawful.

C. The sentence (one million won of fine) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As a matter of course, the crime of intrusion upon residence is a de facto residential peace and protection of the law, the issue of whether the dwelling person or the guard has the right to reside in the building, etc. does not depend on the establishment of the crime, and even if the occupation of the person without the right to possess is the possession of the building, the peace of the residence should be protected. Thus, if the right holder intrudes on the building without following the procedure prescribed by the law in executing the right, the crime of intrusion upon residence is established.

I would like to say.

(See Supreme Court Decision 82Do1363 Decided March 8, 1983, Supreme Court Decision 2007Do11322 Decided May 8, 2008, and Supreme Court Decision 201Do919 Decided July 26, 2012, etc.). In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below and the court below, the Defendant opened a door-to-faced visit against the victim’s will in the room possessed by the Defendant, and entered the room into the room. Such a door-to-faced house was destroyed by the victim’s peace in the residence, and even if it was caused by the Defendant’s house, it is established against the Defendant’s house, and the victim’s consent or agreement.