The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. 1) The Defendant did not enter the victim’s house for the purpose of crime, but rather used to find the cell phone of the Defendant located in the victim’s house. The victim opened the door and opened the cell phone, and the victim committed an indecent act on the part of the victim after finding the mobile phone, but the court below erred by mistake of the fact, thereby making a special indecent act by force by force. In particular, when entering the house, the intention should be determined based on the time of the intrusion. In particular, it was difficult to find the victim’s cell phone for the purpose of entering the house, and therefore, it is difficult to view that the Defendant infringed on the victim’s house because there is no reason to deny the Defendant’s access to the house.

B. The Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime, and was in a state of mental disability.

C. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below 1 on the assertion of mistake of facts is recognized that the defendant invadeds upon the victim's residence on the ground that, even if the victim, who was bread under the influence of alcohol, was opening a door by hearing sound, he could have opened a locking device, according to the defendant's statement, when the victim under the influence of alcohol opened a door and opened a door, the victim had already been locked. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the victim had entered the house according to the victim's intention, and furthermore, the defendant cannot be deemed to have consented to the victim's residence even if the defendant entered the victim's residence for the purpose of crime.