주거침입
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The gist of the grounds for appeal (the factual error) is that the victim was not living in the building of this case, but mobilized the violence of the first police officer on May 2013, 2013, leaving his house only after the crime of this case. As such, it cannot be concluded that the Defendant entered the above residence even if he went to the above residence.
2. The crime of intrusion upon residence is a de facto residential peace. As such, the issue of whether the dwelling person or the guard has the right to reside in the building, etc. does not depend on the establishment of the crime, and the peace of residence should be protected even if the occupation of the non-exclusive person is possessed.
(See Supreme Court Decisions 82Do1363 delivered on March 8, 1983, 2006Do3137 delivered on July 27, 2007, etc.). In light of the above legal principles, as a whole, D may recognize the fact that the building of this case was occupied and used in a peaceful manner before and after the crime of this case (the defendant also seems to have recognized that D had resided in the building of this case at the time of the crime of this case), and household D had no right to reside in the building of this case.
Even if D actually and mentally occupied the building of this case, as long as the defendant destroyed D's peace in residence, the defendant's act constitutes a crime of intrusion upon residence.
Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.
3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.