A. In the misapprehension of the legal principle, Defendant B infringed upon the victims’ residence and left the victim outside the thief.

Therefore, Defendant B had the intent of larceny, but there was no intention of intrusion into residence. Therefore, the Defendants infringed on a “joint” residence.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendants guilty on the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint residential intrusion) even though the Defendants should be acquitted, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court against the illegal Defendants (Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for 10 months and confiscation, Defendant B: Imprisonment with prison labor for 10 months) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of the legal principles, the Defendants’ assertion that they stolen the goods by entering the apartment window with a cutting machine prepared in advance by Defendant A, which was cut off from the outside of Defendant B, as set forth in the misunderstanding of the legal principles

Even if Defendant B recognizes the above crime of Defendant A and recognized the network at the site, the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint residential intrusion) is sufficiently recognized against the Defendants.

2) In addition, elevators, public stairs and corridors inside multi-family housing, such as multi-household houses, multi-household houses, apartment houses, etc. fall under “human habitation” (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do3452, Aug. 20, 2009, etc.) that is the object of the crime of intrusion upon residence, barring any special circumstance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do3452, Aug. 20, 2009). Even if the Defendants entered the apartment corridor together with the apartment corridor, there is a crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (for each of the aforementioned legal principles at the end of the crime committed by the lower court) (see, e

B. As to the unfair argument of sentencing, the Defendants committed the same offense.