A. The Defendant and the victim of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles have divided one house respectively.

However, as a result of the survey, the place where the victim installed a changeer and used it as a toilet was confirmed to be the part of the defendant's ownership.

Accordingly, the defendant entered the above place where the victim was used as a toilet without permission and removed the change.

Ultimately, there is no intrusion on the part of the building owned by the victim, and the act of entering the part of the building owned by the victim cannot be assessed as residential intrusion.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. The relevant legal principles are the legal interest protected by the law that actually infringes upon a residence. As such, the issue of whether a person who has a residence or a guard has a right to live in a building or to receive a guard is not determined by the establishment of a crime, and even if a person who has no right to possess it is possessed, the peace of residence should be protected. Thus, if a right holder intrudes on a building without following the procedure stipulated by the law in the enforcement of his right, the crime of intrusion upon a residence is established.

B. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do11322, May 8, 2008).

Judgment

Based on these legal principles, this case is examined.

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, the defendant may recognize the fact of intrusion into a place where the victim was actually used as a peaceful residence. In such cases, the crime of intrusion into residence is established regardless of the actual ownership relationship of the part.

The judgment of the court below is not erroneous in the misconception of facts and legal scenarios as alleged by the defendant, and the defendant's above assertion is not accepted.

(1) H, the Defendant’s wife F.