The entry of the defendant into a victim's residential corridor for the purpose of crime is against the explicit or presumed intention of the victim or the co-resident.

2. Determination

A. The court below found the defendant and the victim live in Jinju-si B apartment C and E, and found the defendant not guilty of the facts charged in this case on the ground that the defendant's prior corridor in front of the victim's residence (E) is a place open for the defendant, and it is difficult to see that the part of the victim's prior corridor in front of the victim's residence is an exclusive surveillance and management part in relation with the defendant. Thus, even if the defendant had unlawful purposes at the time, it cannot be deemed that "the defendant invadeds another's residence in front of the victim's residence."

B. Examining the above judgment of the court below after comparing it with the records, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as alleged by the prosecutor.

The prosecutor's argument is without merit.

3. The appeal by the prosecutor of the conclusion is groundless, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.