방실침입
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal was that the Defendant did not enter a room in which the Defendant’s father was chered by the E-protection office around 03:20 on May 28, 2013, and even if the Defendant went to a room in which C was in his/her possession, the room was occupied by C, and the Defendant’s intrusion was against C’s will. In addition, the Defendant’s act constitutes a legitimate act by acting to care for his/her father as a person with parental authority, and there was no possibility of expectation for the Defendant’s lawful act.
2. In light of the difference between the first instance court and the appellate court’s method of evaluating the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the first instance court in light of the contents of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court, or the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the first instance court is clearly erroneous, or the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court is clearly unreasonable considering the results of the first instance court’s examination and the results of additional evidence examination conducted until the closing of argument in the appellate court, the appellate court should not reverse the first instance judgment on the sole ground that the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court is different from the appellate court’s determination (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Do5313, Jun. 14, 2012).