Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant is erroneous by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The legal interest in the protection of intrusion of residence is the de facto peace of the residence in which each person residing at the residence concerned enjoys.

B. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the following facts can be acknowledged:

1) On February 21, 2011, the victim leased the studio of this case from the Defendant from March 20, 201 to March 19, 201, setting the deposit amount of KRW 30 million, and the period from March 20, 201 to March 19, 2013. The victim failed to receive the deposit after the expiration of the said lease period.

2) On June 4, 2013, the victim applied for an order to register the right to lease with respect to the above room room in the Suwon District Court, and completed the lease registration pursuant to the above application on July 18, 2013, and moved into a dormitory in the workplace where he/she had attended.

3) The victim did not return the key of the above room room to the defendant at the time of the director, and the victim placed two clothes and clothes in the above room room according to the advice of the surrounding court.

4) The address under the Act on the Registration of Residents of the Victim is from March 22, 2011 to the date of conclusion of the lease agreement on the above room room.

(c)

However, comprehensively taking account of the circumstances in paragraphs (1) through (3) as revealed in the record, it was proved to the extent that the victim was able to enjoy de facto peace while living in the room room of this case on each date of the facts charged, solely based on the facts found in the above paragraphs (b) above.

As such, the prosecutor cannot be seen.