2. The judgment recognizes the Defendant to commit the instant crime, and the residence invaded by the Defendant does not intrude into the victim’s studio with the corridor of the studio building, and the fact that the Defendant agreed with the victim is an element of sentencing favorable to the Defendant.

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant sent a message, such as the defendant's rejection of separate objection from the victim and the defendant's sending a pesticide to die, and then the defendant leakages the outside entrance number of the studio building where the victim resides and intrudes into the above studio building is an unfavorable sentencing factor against the defendant

In addition, the lower court did not change the sentencing conditions that may be newly considered in this court compared to the lower court, comprehensively taking into account the above factors of sentencing.

In addition, considering the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, criminal records, motive and background leading to the instant crime, and circumstances after the instant crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is only within the reasonable scope of discretion, and it is not deemed unfair because it is too unreasonable.

3. The defendant's appeal is without merit and thus dismissed pursuant to Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.