A victim, even though he/she was divorced from C on February 25, 2000, is a person who resides in the instant residence and infringes C's right to residence.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which recognized the defendant's crime of intrusion upon the victim's residence cannot be deemed as an act of intrusion upon the victim's residence in the case of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

2. In full view of all the facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the Defendant’s intrusion upon the victim’s residence can be acknowledged.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as alleged by the defendant.

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.

[However, since it is obvious that the "E" in Part 3 of the second written judgment of the court below is a clerical error in the "C", it shall be corrected in accordance with Article 25 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.]