The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (in fact, mistake, and unreasonable sentencing) is that the Defendant entered the instant officetel with the consent of E, a housing owner, and does not intrude into the instant officetel. Even if the Defendant was not a housing owner, the Defendant knew that E was a housing owner, and thus did not have the intention of intrusion.

The punishment (two million won of fine) declared by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. We examine the argument of mistake of facts. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined at the court below: ① the instant officetel was leased for the purpose of residing in the United States in order to assist in the treatment of his father and wife; ② the instant officetel was actually used for D’s main purpose; ② A was a patient being treated at a long time in the mental and closed ward for a long time and could not independently leave the instant officetel at the hospital without his guardian; ② her mother was in the instant officetel, and there was only few occasions with D’s mother, and there was little little out of them; ③ D did not directly inform E of the entrance password; ③ A was reported and memoryd by E at the time of opening the entrance password; ④ the instant officetel was not aware of the method of entering the instant officetel; ④ the instant officetel was established against the resident’s will, as long as the Defendant obtained the instant officetel’s consent, and the instant officetel was against the resident’s intention.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty on this part of the charges is just and there is no error of mistake of facts as alleged by the defendant.

B. Determination on the assertion of unfair sentencing is examined, and the defendant has suffered significant disadvantage in the workplace due to the instant case, not only once a fine but also before a fine is imposed.