A. Defendant’s appeal 1) misunderstanding of facts

B) Before replacing the locking device, the victim told the Defendant that he had already moved to another place. Accordingly, the instant apartment was exceeded from the control of the fact of the victim, and thus, the instant apartment is not constituted a crime of intrusion upon residence. 2) The penalty of the lower court sentenced by unreasonable sentencing (200,000 won) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s appeal by the lower court is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The court below made a statement to the effect that "self-defense continued to live in the apartment of this case and the defendant was allowed to enter the apartment of this case (Evidence No. 2 No. 9)" that the defendant and the victim did not have any permission to enter the apartment of this case after being investigated into the police by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below. The court below stated to the effect that "self-defense continued to live in the apartment of this case and did not allow the defendant to enter the apartment of this case (Evidence No. 8 of the record No. 1 of the record)" and that "I had no other director, but he did not allow the defendant to enter the apartment of this case or enter the apartment of this case" (Evidence No. 1 of the record No. 8 of the record). The court below stated to the effect that "I did not have any fact that I had been living in the apartment of this case, and that I had no house built together with the victim's statement consistent with the victim's statement at the time when the defendant and the victim paid the expenses to the defendant and the victim.