A. The victim of the misunderstanding of facts waives his right of residence or right to dispose of the apartment, and the defendant did not have the intention of entering his residence, and the statement of the victim against this intention is not reliable.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. In light of the background leading up to the Defendant’s instant crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment (two million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The defendant alleged the same purport as the reasons for appeal of this case in the court below, and the court below rejected the above argument in detail with the defendant's argument and its decision under the summary of evidence of the judgment. In light of the above judgment of the court below compared with records, the judgment of the court below is just and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

B. The Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle on the assertion of unfair sentencing, ought to respect the determination of sentencing in a case where there exists a unique area of the first instance court as to the determination of sentencing, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the first instance court’s

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Even if the materials submitted in the trial at the trial, there is no significant change in the sentencing conditions compared to the original judgment, and comprehensively taking account of all the factors indicated in the records of this case, the lower court’s sentencing is too unreasonable to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. Thus, the defendant's appeal is without merit.