A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

Since misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles are "waste collection center" without a roof, and the defendant enters a garbage collection center through open doors, "waste collection center" itself is not a building, but a "waste collection center" is an open place for neighboring residents, and there was no access system. Therefore, the above summary of the defendant's act cannot be deemed as a violation of the structure.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (four months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant’s ex officio, prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by authority, the prosecutor applied for changes in the indictment to the effect that “a structure managed by others” in the last part of paragraph (1) of Article 1 of the facts charged as “waste collection center” and “a structure managed by others” in the first part, (b), and (c) as “a structure managed by others” respectively. Since this court permitted this, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.

However, even though there are such reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to the entry of structures into the above summary of the YA High School is still subject to the judgment of this court, and the following is

In this paragraph, we examine this.

B. In determining the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal principle, the "building", which is the object of intrusion, includes not only the building itself, but also the summary of the building attached thereto, in a strict sense in light of the fact that the crime of intrusion upon residence actually takes into account the peace of residence as a legal interest. The above summary is adjacent to the structure.