Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 2.5 million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

A. In the lower judgment, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine as delineated below, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

1) The Defendant, at the time and place indicated in the original facts charged in the judgment of the lower court, proposed that the victim met the victim at a place, and subsequently tried to open a door again. The victim tried to take a photograph of the Defendant’s body while intending to take a cellular phone when intending to take a bath against the Defendant.

Accordingly, in the process of preventing the defendant from photographing out his arms without permission, the damage caused by the defendant's loss to the victim's knife the victim's knife and knife the victim's mother and knife, and the victim's loss was damaged.

As such, the Defendant did not have any intention to assault the victim or damage the victim’s safety. Furthermore, in light of the circumstances, the Defendant’s act constitutes a reasonable act to defend the victim’s unfair infringement, and thus constitutes a justifiable act, as it does not constitute a legitimate defense or a violation of social norms.

2) On December 25, 2016, the lower judgment: (a) on December 25, 2016, the Defendant sent a victim’s message prior to sending the message with the content of “Illlllln” to the victim on December 25, 2016; and (b) the victim implicitly consented to the Defendant’s visit, such as sending a message with the content of “Illln” without expressing the intent of refusal.

Even if there was no consent of the victim at the time.

However, due to the above attitude of the victim, the defendant had no choice but to understand that the damaged person consented to the visit of the defendant. Therefore, the defendant did not have the intention of intrusion upon residence.

In addition, the space of the defendant's moving at the time is open to all, and it cannot be the object of the residential intrusion.

Therefore, the act of any mother or the defendant does not constitute a crime of intrusion upon residence.

B) December 2016