2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant was no longer allowed to enter the victim’s house without the victim’s consent, as long as the victim clearly expressed his/her intention not to contact again with the Defendant.

Since it is reasonable to see that more than 15 days from the date of notification by decision and entry into the victim's house constitutes a crime of intrusion upon residence, and that there was the victim's constructive consent to enter the victim's house.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

① From the end of 2012, the Defendant conspired with the victim on the premise of marriage. On August 28, 2015, the victim informed the Defendant of the degree of decision on the ground that he/she was aware of the circumstances suspected of having taken place a double teaching system.

2. The victim changed the mobile phone number following the day on which he notified the defendant by decision, and the defendant identified the changed mobile phone number of the victim through the victim's workplace rent, and sent or walked on the victim's text message from time to time.

However, the victim sent words to the effect that he did not receive the phone of the defendant and that he does not contact the defendant in the future over several times, and made clear his intention not to communicate again with the defendant.

③ On September 18, 2015, on the day of the instant case, the Defendant sent the victim a text message to the effect that the Defendant was able to talk with the victim, but the victim did not respond thereto.

Nevertheless, the defendant is Daegu.