A. The judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the charge of this case even though the Defendant did not intend to intrude into a residence, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and adversely affected the judgment

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (the penalty amount of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, i.e., (i) the victim would not find the Defendant’s house even before the instant case.

In light of the fact that several stories had been talked several times, ② the Defendant had already been 4 times at the lower time on October 18, 2014, or that it had been difficult for the Defendant to find out the victim and have avoided the disturbance in the future of the victim’s house, ③ the time during which the instant crime was committed was at the time of self-determination, etc., the Defendant appears to have sufficiently recognized that going up in the future of the victim’s house at the time of the instant crime was against the victim’s explicit or presumed intent. Thus, the Defendant had an intent to intrude into a residence.

can be sufficiently recognized.

On the other hand, the Defendant asserts that the damaged person assaults the Defendant and driving away away from the escape. However, the date when the victim and the Defendant appears to have been a fighting on his body, such as the part dismissed in the lower court’s indictment, is October 12, 2014. At the time of committing the instant crime, the victimized person assaulted the Defendant at the time of committing the instant crime, or was punished by a fighting on his body by the victim and the Defendant.

No evidence can be found at all, and the defendant's above assertion cannot be accepted.

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

B. Although there are favorable circumstances such as that the defendant's judgment on the unfair argument of sentencing is limited to the range of corridors in front of the victim's office, and that the victim repeatedly desires to take the defendant's position against the defendant, up to the trial of the defendant on the other hand.