2. Determination

A. In the crime of intrusion upon residence, the “building”, which is the object of the act of intrusion, includes not only the building itself, but also the summary of the above attached thereto in a strict sense in light of the fact that the crime of intrusion upon residence is practically a legal interest to protect the peace of residence. However, the above summary should be clearly revealed from the objective point of view that the land adjacent to the structure is installed by a fence, etc. on the boundary with the outside, and is provided for use of the structure, and that the outside is not allowed to have access without permission.

Therefore, even if land annexed to a building, which contributes to the use of the building, is the land annexed to the building, if the boundary of the building can be easily exceeded due to the lack of partition or control by human resources and physical facilities, it is objectively clear that the entry of the outside person is restricted.

Therefore, it is difficult to see it as it does not belong to the object of a residential intrusion unless there are other special circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do14643, Apr. 29, 2010). b) Doclock, the front and front front of the front and front of the entrance of the defendant, as follows: “The front and front of the entrance of the defendant is clearly evident that the outside person is unable to have access without permission, by installing fences, etc. on the boundary, or the outside person is unable to have access normally without special measures.” Thus, the above place cannot be seen as a summary belonging to the object of the residential intrusion.

(c)

In the end, the court below is just in holding the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged, and the prosecutor’s above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion.