(b) Presumption consent of the victim against the intrusion of the owner of a house;

B. We accept the decision of the court below that the defendant's constructive consent to intrude into the building or that the defendant's crime of this case does not violate the social norms if the dispute on the ownership of the building continues to exist between the defendant who claimed as the owner of the building and the victim who occupied it.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance on the ground that the defendant's intrusion upon the house of this case and the evidence adopted by the court below can be seen as a residence subject to a residential intrusion, and it can be recognized that the victim occupied and managed the house of this case, as alleged by the defendant, even though the house of this case is owned by the defendant as the defendant, it does not interfere with the establishment of the crime of residential intrusion, and there is a dispute over the ownership of the house of this case between the defendant and the victim at the time of the crime of this case, and the dispute has been continued until now, it is judged that the defendant's intrusion upon the house of this case or the crime of this case does not violate social rules. In light of the records, the court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance on the adoption of evidence and the judgment of the court below, and it is just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles due to incomplete deliberation as pointed out by the court below, or there is no merit in this regard.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)