A. Fact-misunderstanding, misunderstanding of the legal doctrine 1) C is not a crime of intrusion upon residence, since it was born in the apartment of this case or live in peace and public performance by May 24, 2012, and the Defendant has a right to residence, and the Defendant went to and went under the consent of C by a legitimate possessor of the right to possess.

2) The creditor of the decision to commence the auction of this case is G and the debtor C, and the applicant for the extradition order of this case is G and the respondent, and the delivery order received by the respondent who is not the debtor of the decision to commence the auction of this case as the respondent is not an executory power, but A is not a direct possessor, and therefore, it cannot be the counter-party to the extradition order.

3) The Defendant did not open a door to H and requested it, and there was no intention to process and process the damage of property since the preparation of equipment for intrusion upon residence was conducted by H.

4) The police officer did not present the warrant of detention to the defendant, and since the police officer was detained without the warrant of detention, the evidence derived from the detention after the detention without the warrant of detention cannot be used as evidence of guilt.

5) Since the F’s statement does not satisfy the requirements of Article 312(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, it cannot be used as evidence constituting the basis for the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (an amount of KRW 700,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion that the crime of intrusion by residence is not established on the ground that the consent of C was obtained from a legitimate possessor of a right to possess the facts, the crime of intrusion by residence is established by not leaving the place of residence or the place of residence without any justifiable reason. Since the crime of intrusion by residence is established by infringing upon or receiving a demand from a person's dwelling or a liver dwelling, building, etc., and the crime of intrusion by residence is de facto protecting the peace of residence, the issue of whether the resident or the guard has a legitimate legal authority to reside in the building, etc. does not affect the establishment of the crime,