(a) misunderstanding of facts (the point of residence intrusion) was merely entered by opening a door, and did not intrude.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the victim was divorced from the Defendant on February 2014, and the Defendant was unable to enter the house and did not open the door. On March 3, 2014, the Defendant entered the house by an unlawful means and destroyed the house, and only the victim was at the house at the time. Thus, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

B. In full view of all the sentencing conditions indicated in the records and arguments of the instant case of unfair sentencing, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

3. Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.