2. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court and the lower court, it can be recognized that the Defendant, before the victim’s house, claimed that the Defendant left the door of a multi-household house in which the victim is mixed, and did not request the victim to leave the door.

"Acts which do not violate the social norms" under Article 20 of the Criminal Code refers to acts which can be accepted in light of the overall spirit of legal order or the social ethics or social norms surrounding it, and what acts are legitimate acts which do not violate the social norms and thus, the illegality of which is excluded should be determined individually by rationally and reasonably considering the specific circumstances, under the concrete circumstances. In order to recognize such legitimate acts, the following requirements should be met: the legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act; the legitimacy of the means or method of the act; the reasonableness of the means or method; the third means or method of the act; the formation of the legal interest between the protected interest and the infringed interest; fourth urgency; fifth, the absence of any other means or method other than

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Do2680 Decided May 27, 2010). The Defendant’s act of intrusion upon the residence of this case is difficult to deem that there is a reasonableness of the means or method, and it does not constitute a justifiable act, since it cannot be deemed that the Defendant met the requirements of urgency or any other means or method, and it does not constitute a justifiable act. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.