A. The Defendant: (a) was aware of the conflict with the wife due to sound from the victim that the wife was not in contact separately; and (b) received an active request to rescue the garment; and (c) sought the garment by entering the victim’s house; and (d) was given prior consent or consent to the access to residence and the wall damage.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misunderstanding the fact that the Defendant invadedd the residence of the victim and damaged the property without the victim’s consent or consent.

B. In light of the legal principles, the Defendant’s intrusion upon the victim’s residence and destroying the wall is urgently needed to rescue the life of the high-sea and thus, it constitutes a justifiable act. However, the lower court determined that the Defendant was guilty of the facts charged in the instant case. Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

C. The lower court’s sentence of an unreasonable sentencing (700,000 won) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Around November 13, 2018, the summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant listened to the Victim C’s house located in Silung-si, Sinung-si, that the Defendant would rescue the victim by finding the victim. The Defendant left the place, “I am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am..............” The Defendant left the place, “I am am am am am in order to conduct the rescue work for demand on November 14 of the day.......” The Defendant did not have any physical damage on the house itself, and even after the rescue and recovery work, I am am am am am am.....”

On November 14, 199, the victim discovered a side of the 14:00 am on the following day, and made a telephone to the defendant, but was not connected.

On November 14, 2018, the Defendant, who entered a residence, did not have any answer to the victim two times or more but there is no answer outside it.