A. misunderstanding of facts and legal principles 1) The Defendant merely went to work at the place where the instant crime was committed and did not enter the above place with the intention to have sexual intercourse.

2) The marriage relationship between the victim and the victim with D, the husband of the victim, has already been distressed.

Therefore, since the control and management relationship between the victim's place of crime of this case has ceased, it is common residence between the victim and D.

subsection (b) of this section.

Therefore, the entry of the defendant into the above place does not constitute a residential intrusion.

B. The punishment sentenced by the court below (hereinafter referred to as 3,00,000 won) is excessively unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The Defendant also asserted the same as the lower court in relation to the factual relations, and the lower court rejected the above assertion in detail, stating in detail the decision on this issue.

In light of the circumstances such as the reasoning of the court below's duly adopted and investigated evidence, the judgment of the court below is just and there is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of facts is without merit.

2) The legal interest in the crime of intrusion upon residence under the Criminal Act is not the legal concept of a right to residence, but is in fact a freedom and peace of residence in a private living relationship, and has the right to enjoy peace and peace in the residence. However, if one person’s consent is contrary to the intention of another resident directly or indirectly, access to the residence is a result that undermines peace and peace in the control and management of the residence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 83Do685, Jun. 26, 1984). Thus, the crime of intrusion upon residence is established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 83Do685, Jun. 26, 1984).