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

2. The crime of intrusion upon residence is the legal interest protected by the law in which the crime of intrusion upon residence is actually established. Thus, even if a person is permitted to enter the building due to the relation with the resident or manager, if the act of entering the residence is reduced even though it is against the resident's explicit or presumed intent, the crime of intrusion upon residence is established.

Comprehensively taking account of the following facts admitted by the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the defendant was sufficiently recognized to have infringed the peace of the victim's residence by entering the victim's residence against the victim's will.

① The Defendant did not contact the victim D in advance and visited the victim’s house on the date stated in the instant facts charged.

② At the time, the victim’s house was F, which had been dead before the victim died with the Defendant, together with the victim.

(3) The victim did not inform the accused of the password of the office entrance of the victim.

④ While the Defendant knew of the fact that the victim was in his house, the Defendant opened a door but did not open the door, the Defendant opened a door and opened a door (the Defendant stated at an investigative agency that the password was opened several times in a way different from the number arrangement relating to the life of the victim, and that the door was opened several times in a way different from the number arrangement relating to the life of the victim). The Defendant was able to avoid disturbance while doing a dispute with the victim.

The defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion.