2. Determination

A. Despite the fact that the main gates of the instant housing building was considerably fixed at a disadvantage, the Defendant removed the enormous amount without permission and went into the dwelling where the victim resides.

The victim makes a statement in an investigative agency that he/she was unaware of the defendant's intrusion.

나. 유리한 정상 피고인은, 형수(兄嫂)의 소유로서 피해자가 임차하여 사용하는 주택 마당 감나무에서 감을 따가도 좋다는 형수의 말을 듣고 이 사건 주택 마당에 들어간 것으로, 그곳에 들어가기 전에 피해자를 불렀으나 아무도 없는 것 같기에 감만 따가기 위해 잠시 들어간 것이라고 주장한다.

The crime of this case was committed at a low time, and the defendant seems to have been closed at the house of this case with his family members, such as young grandchildren, etc.

In light of this, it does not seem that the defendant had an active intention to undermine the peace of the victim's residence.

around 2001, the Defendant has not been punished in addition to a fine of 200,000 won due to a violation of the Outdoor Advertisements, etc. Control Act.

C. As above, the lower court appears to have determined the sentence in consideration of the various favorable and unfavorable circumstances of the Defendant. In full view of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, etc., as well as the various sentencing conditions indicated in the records and arguments, it is difficult to view that the lower court’s sentencing is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.