A. In fact, the Defendant, as stated in the judgment of the court below, by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, opened a window at the victim’s house and brought out the victim’s house outside the window in order to open the window, it cannot be deemed that there was the commencement of the crime of intrusion upon residence at the time, since the fingers were not included in the victim’s house or part of other body was not entered into the victim’s house to open the window, and even if the commencement of the crime of intrusion upon residence was considered as the commencement of the crime, the Defendant did not reach the number of pages.

Nevertheless, the court below found Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. The court below erred by misunderstanding facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant was in a state of mental disorder or mental retardation.

C. The sentence imposed by the lower court (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The commencement of the commission of a crime of housing intrusion by mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal principles is not required to realize part of the elements of a crime, i.e., the act of entering a structure which is against the will of a resident, manager, or occupant, etc., or entering a management structure. It is sufficient to start specific acts for intrusion such as adding a correction device entering a residence or opening a door, etc., for example, it is sufficient to start the act of including a realistic risk leading to the realization of the elements of a crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Do4417, Oct. 24, 2003; 2008Do917, Mar. 27, 2008). Thus, the crime of housing intrusion by reference to the crime of de facto residence invasion is protected, and thus, the physical part of the offender is not necessarily established.