The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the facts constituting a crime (1) of the lower judgment, the Defendant entered Seongbuk-gu Office to conduct an interview with the head of Seongbuk-gu Office, which was promised in advance at the time of the instant case, and thus, it does not go against the intention of the head of Seongbuk-gu, a person holding a right to residence.

(2) At the time of the instant case, the Defendant was not a half of the 500mlance water, but a half of the 1/5mlance water, and the width was not a half of the plastic container, and there was no fact that the Defendant was a part of the container, etc. on the floor of the head of the Gu room.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, one hundred and twenty hours of community service order, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine the argument that the crime No. 1 (the entry of a special structure into a building) in the judgment of the court below is not contrary to the intention of the head of Seongbuk-gu who is a residential right holder.

Since the crime of intrusion upon residence is the legal interest protected by the law, the crime of intrusion upon residence is established if the act of entering the residence is committed against the explicit or presumed intention of the resident or manager, even though the person is permitted to enter the residence due to the relation with the resident or manager.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Do2595, Aug. 23, 2007; 201Do8349, Oct. 13, 201). In this case, the Defendant entered Seongbuk-gu Office according to the interview promise with the head of Seongbuk-gu.

Even if one does not enter his own demand, he carried one petroleum, which is a dangerous object, in his body, which would be pretended to be Blshed and put into the body, and the defendant enters this situation against the presumption of the victim.