A. As a manager of “C” public notice board, the Defendant left the above public notice board E room (hereinafter “instant room”) and entered the victim’s house without speech and opened a non-permanent visit in a state where the said room is unsatisfed. As such, the Defendant did not harm the peace of the victim’s residence and did not intend to commit a crime of intrusion. In light of the characteristics of the public notice board and the situation of the instant room at the time, the victim’s constructive consent is sufficiently recognized.

In addition, the act of entering the room of this case was a legitimate act as a public official.

B. As to the damage of property, the Defendant had expressed his intent to leave the victim’s goods (one thing owned by the victim, two textbooks, and hereinafter “instant goods”), but it is understood as implied consent due to the failure to receive answer, and there was no intention to commit the damage of property.

In addition, it is difficult to regard the value of the instant article as KRW 250,000.

2. The defendant alleged the same argument in the court below, and the court below rejected the above argument in detail in the decision of the court below at least 3th 4th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th.

(1) The defendant thought that the defendant had resided in the victim because he/she viewed him/her as a brutator or asked him/her by telephone, and that the defendant in this case.