A. The Defendant did not have any error in facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, thereby entering the victim’s office.

Even if the defendant entered the family of the victim, the victim's understanding or consent was given.

In light of the relationship between the defendant and the victim prior to that time, the defendant was also aware or consented by the victim.

The intention of intrusion on residence should be denied because there was a good reason.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted as a result of a determination of misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant was under investigation prior to the instant case into the suspected facts committed by the victim.

On the day of the instant case, the Defendant demanded the victim to prepare a written application for no punishment for the assault case, and the victim prepared a written application for no punishment on the condition that the Defendant did not find any longer.

Nevertheless, the defendant, while under the influence of alcohol, returned to the victim's house and entered the entrance.

In addition, in light of the relationship between the Defendant and the victim, the situation before and after the instant case, and the attitude of the victim against the Defendant’s access to the City/Do, there was a understanding or consent of the victim at the time of the instant case, or there was a justifiable reason to believe that

It is difficult to see it.

The defendant's assertion of mistake or misunderstanding of the legal principles is rejected in all.

B. There is no significant change in circumstances to consider the sentencing of the defendant after the judgment of the court below regarding the unfair argument of sentencing.

In light of the facts alleged by the Defendant on the grounds of appeal, the lower court’s sentence cannot be deemed unfair, even if all of the circumstances alleged by the Defendant are considered as grounds of appeal.

We do not accept the defendant's unfair argument of sentencing.

3. Conclusion.