A. 1) Fact-finding 1) The Defendant only entered the corridor of the building where the victim resides and did not intrude into the victim’s room.

2) The Defendant, with the consent of the victim, was unable to wear the Defendant on the vehicle, and the Defendant did not arrest the victim as much as he visited the victim’s residential convenience store and bought the goods and took the victim’s residence during the operation (the Defendant did not take the breath of the victim’s breath, and claimed that he did not have the Defendant’s breath. However, the lower court accepted the Defendant’s above assertion, and recognized that the Defendant did not inflict an injury by breathing the victim’s breath, and thus, did not judge the Defendant’s breath of the victim’s breath. The lower court’s unfair sentencing is unreasonable because the Defendant was too large.

2. Determination

A. Error 1) As the lower court properly explained, the victim invadedd the Defendant’s own room in the court of the lower judgment.

In addition, as the stairs and corridor used for public use in multi-family housing, such as multi-household houses, multi-household houses, apartment houses, and apartment houses, are essential parts for each household or household used as a residence, and there is a need to protect the peace and peace of residence, barring any special circumstance, it constitutes “human habitation” which is the object of the crime of intrusion upon residence (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do3452, Aug. 20, 2009). The Defendant may recognize the fact that he intruded into the corridor of the building in which the victim resides, as the lower court properly states, as follows: (a) the stairs and corridor used for public use in multi-family housing, such as multi-household houses, multi-household houses, apartment houses, etc., are planned to be supervised and managed in his daily life and there is a need to protect the peace and peace of residence.