주거침입
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. misunderstanding the gist of the grounds for appeal or misunderstanding the legal principles (the defendant leased the above house to F as the actual owner of the house in this case, and the victim D entered the contract with F on the ground of F and then entered the above house in order to resist the fact that he was residing in the above house thereafter). 2. The crime of intrusion upon residence in this court does not depend on the establishment of crime since the crime of intrusion upon residence is a de facto peace and protection of the law, and therefore the resident's right to reside is not protected. Even if the person without the right to possess it, the peace of residence should be protected even if the person without the right to possess it, so the crime of intrusion upon residence is established even if the right holder intrudes into the building by means of self-help rather than by the procedure
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 85Do122, Mar. 26, 1985; 87Do1760, Nov. 10, 1987). In light of such legal principles, even if the Defendant’s assertion is based on the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant’s act of arbitrarily entering the instant house in which the victim D resides before taking legal procedures, such as a lusium lawsuit, constitutes a crime of intrusion upon residence, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion disputing this point is unacceptable.
3. Accordingly, we cannot accept the Defendant’s appeal under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.