It can not be seen as well.

In addition, there was a understanding of the victim on the entry of the defendant into the dwelling of this case.

Since there was a considerable reason to believe that there was no intention to infringe upon the residence.

Even if not, the illegality of the defendant's entering the residential area of this case is excluded as a legitimate act.

The punishment of the court below (the amount of 300,000 won) which is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

Judgment

In fact, the legal doctrine related to the determination of the assertion of mistake is that the crime of intrusion upon residence is a de facto legal interest to protect the peace of residence, so the resident or manager has the right to reside or manage in the building.

The establishment of a crime does not depend on the establishment of a crime, and even if a person who has access to the building at ordinary times is permitted due to the relationship with the resident or manager, if the act of entering the building was committed against the explicit or presumed intention of the resident or manager, then the crime of intrusion upon the residence is established if the act of entering the building was committed despite the absence of the explicit or presumed intention of the resident or manager. In a case where the entry via the entrance is not normal access through the entrance, the method of intrusion itself should be deemed to go against the aforementioned intent, barring any special circumstance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Do2595, Aug. 23, 2007; 2012Do976, Apr. 12, 2012). Based on the legal principle as seen earlier, the part of the allegation that the peace of residence was not infringed upon by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the

It is reasonable to view it.

Ultimately, the Defendant cannot accept this part of the argument.

1. Korea.