A. misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant was living with the victim in the victim’s residence (hereinafter “instant residence”). However, when the Defendant entered the instant residence on November 10, 2018, the Defendant did not have been completely relieved from the community life, and the Defendant did not recognize it. Therefore, the Defendant’s entry into the instant residence does not constitute a crime of intrusion.

Even if the defendant's act constitutes the element of intrusion upon residence, it is justified as an act that does not go against social rules.

However, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principle and misunderstanding the facts charged as to the defendant's residential intrusion.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (six months of imprisonment, one year of suspended sentence, one year of suspended qualification) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination 1 on the assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine ) Determination as to the assertion that a residential intrusion crime is not constituted, (a) the Defendant also asserted the same as the grounds for appeal in this part.

Therefore, the court below held that the crime of intrusion upon residence is a de facto legal interest to protect the peace of residence, and even if a person permitted access to the building due to the relation with the resident or manager, if the act of entering the residence was committed despite being contrary to the explicit or presumed intention of the resident or manager (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do2595, Aug. 23, 2007), the crime of intrusion upon residence is established if the act of entering the residence was committed despite being contrary to the explicit or presumed intention of the resident or manager (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do2595, Nov. 23, 2007).