On January 5, 2016, at around 12:30, the Defendant entered the said building without the consent of the victim or the studio resident living in the said building and infringed upon the victim’s house by leaving the victim’s house to the front corridor 502, where the victim’s house, and without the consent of the victim or the studio resident living in the said building.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by the police against B;

1. The defendant was unaware of the fact that the crime of intrusion upon residence is established only with the entry into a corridor;

The argument is asserted.

In the crime of intrusion upon residence, the residence refers not only to the house itself, but also to the summary of the residence such as the garden.

Therefore, since elevators and stairs and corridors used for public use in multi-family housing, such as multi-household houses, multi-household houses, apartment houses, and apartment houses, are necessarily annexed to the exclusive part of each household or household used for residential purpose, and the residents are expected to monitor and manage in their daily lives and are in need of de facto protection of peace in residential environment, barring any special circumstance, the act of intrusion against the residents' explicit and implied intent constitutes a crime of intrusion upon residence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2009Do3452, Aug. 20, 2009; 2009Do4335, Sept. 10, 2009).

1. Article 319 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime, Article 319 of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines, and the selection of fines;

1. Penalty fine of 500,000 won to be suspended;

1. Article 70 of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse.