A. Legal reasoning is that the defendant's entry into an apartment in which the victims reside is not aimed at committing an offense, or is not contrary to the intent of the victims, and thus, the crime of intrusion upon a residence is not established.

Even if the defendant's act constitutes the element of the crime of intrusion upon residence, it is difficult to view that the defendant's act is against the social norms, since the defendant found the victims to follow the past case in relation to the victim D.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of the legal doctrine, the residence does not simply refer to the house itself, but includes the summary of the residence, such as the garden.

Therefore, since elevators and stairs and corridors used for public use in multi-family housing, such as multi-household houses, multi-household houses, apartment houses, and apartment houses, are necessarily annexed to each household or household used for residential purpose, and are planned to monitor and manage in their daily lives and to protect de facto residential peace, it is necessary to protect the residents. Thus, barring any special circumstance, an elevator inside multi-family housing, such as multi-household houses, multi-household houses, multi-household houses, apartment houses, and apartment houses, public stairs, and corridor constitute "human residence," which is an object of a residential intrusion, and intrusion against the residents' explicit and implied intent constitutes a crime of intrusion upon residence (Supreme Court Decision 2009Do4335 Decided September 10, 200), based on the above legal principle, and the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below: < Amended by Act No. 1318, Feb. 1, 2009>