The victim F's house into the victim F's house, parked the above vehicle at the same place after leaving the vehicle, leaving the string to the string, leaving the string to the string, leaving the victim F, and taking a bath to the victim F.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion that the Defendant did not park the vehicle in the victim F Housing Mar., and that the Defendant was an open place in front of the said house where the outside is accessible, and thus, the crime of intrusion upon the residence cannot be established.

B. As to the crime of intrusion upon residence, a structure, which is the object of the act of intrusion, refers to a structure comprised of the surrounding wall, pole, roof, or ceiling, where a person can remove or enter, and it does not simply refer to the structure itself, but includes the above summary. However, it is clearly revealed that the manager, as the surrounding land adjacent to the structure, installed a door and fence on the boundary with the outside, and provided the land for the use of the structure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Do531, Oct. 7, 2005; 2009Do3452, Aug. 20, 2009).

Judgment

The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated in this Court, i.e., the husband of the victim F H, who was the victim F, parked the vehicle in the victim F’s house.

One of the arguments is that there is no objective evidence to prove it, and ② the defendant was disputed on July 18, 2015 with the victim F, H, and the victim F, but at that time the defendant did not park the vehicle to the front end of the house of the victim F (this was also stated as a witness). The defendant's following day is the victim F's house.