The Defendant was married with D, the owner of the C Housing at Ansan-si, and the victim was the lessee of the said housing from May 1, 2014 to May 8, 2015.

From May 3, 2015 to June of the same month, the Defendant entered the front of the said victim’s residence without any justifiable reason, thereby impairing the peace of residence.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to each investigation report and accompanying documents;

1. The pertinent legal provisions on criminal facts, Article 319(1) of the Criminal Act on the selection of punishment, and the selection of fines [the Defendant and his/her defense counsel] asserts that there was no intention of intrusion on residence, since the Defendant and his/her defense counsel had a dispute before the victim and his/her residence, and entered the house with the victim and entered the house in the process, and

The crime of intrusion upon residence is a legal interest protected by the de facto peace of residence, and the crime of intrusion upon residence may be established not only when it is against the explicit will of the resident or manager, but also when it is against the presumed intention (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2011Do8349, Oct. 13, 2011; 83Do685, Jun. 26, 1984). In full view of the aforementioned evidence, the defendant entered the victim’s residence without the victim’s explicit consent and entered the victim’s residence without the victim’s consent. Then, in light of the circumstances where the victim entered the house, etc., the victim’s constructive objection against the entry of the house can be acknowledged.

Therefore, the victim's peace in residence was infringed due to the defendant's act.

The mere fact that the Defendant had the intent to intrude into a residence is also recognized, and the Defendant came to enter the victim's house in the course of a conflict with the victim, and that there was a gate of the victim cannot be viewed differently.

The defendant's act does not constitute a intrusion upon residence and defense counsel's allegation.