The defendant shall be innocent.

The defendant is the victim B and the neighbor.

On July 22, 2019, at around 09:00 on July 22, 2019, the Defendant, along with C, entered the victim’s residence located in Gumi-si D, and entered the residence through an open gate, in order to clarify the boundary between the Defendant’s land and the victim’s land.

Accordingly, the defendant infringed upon the victim's residence jointly with C.

Judgment

In the crime of intrusion upon residence, the "building", which is the object of the crime of intrusion upon residence, shall include not only the building itself, but also the summary of the building attached thereto, in light of the fact that the crime of intrusion upon residence is actually protected by the law and protection of the law. However, the above summary should clearly be objectively revealed that the land adjacent to the building, which is installed with a fenced with the outside, is provided for use of the building and it is not allowed for the outside to access without permission.

(1) In light of the above legal principles, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the establishment of a residential intrusion, and thereby, did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the establishment of a residential intrusion, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the establishment of a residential intrusion, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal, contrary to what is alleged in the ground of appeal.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Do14643 Decided April 29, 2010). According to the evidence examined in this Court, the victim’s mathy road and the mathy road abutting on the victim’s mathy road were installed. However, from 2018 to 2019, the said wall was collapsed, and the victim made gates as fences at the middle part of the mathy road in the middle part of the mathy road where the victim’s mathy road begins in spring around 2019.