A. misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles (as to intrusion upon residence), if a person with a right to residence consents, the crime of intrusion is not established. The defendant is a person with a right to residence, since he/she was living together with the victim, such as resolving board and lodging at the victim's house at least 10 times a month, and having been aware of the personal identification number, etc., at least 10 times a month, and thus, he/she is a person with a right to residence. Even if the defendant assumed that he/she is not a person with a right to residence, even if he/she is not a person with a right to residence, the defendant entered the victim's house in the manner

Unlike the rule of experience, deeming that the victim of the right to residence had obtained the access password by the person who suffered the right to residence and had access to it. Therefore, the consent of the person who has the right to residence was obtained.

I would like to say.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles.

2) Since the Defendant was in a de facto marital relationship with the victim on the premise that he was married, making the victim take care of the Defendant living in his house at the close time at the new wall, despite the existence of the duty to protect the Defendant, the victim did not fulfill the duty to protect the Defendant and did not infringe upon the Defendant’s residence.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles.

B. In light of the following: (a) the Defendant’s mental and physical disorder (related to special intimidation) was in excess of a usual figure on the date of the charge; (b) the background leading up to the Defendant to commit a special intimidation; and (c) the Defendant’s behavior thereafter; and (d) the Defendant has no motive for committing a special intimidation, the Defendant is under the influence of alcohol.