The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the case of intrusion upon a residence against the victim C, the defendant was merely aware of the apartment house and entered the house of the victim E with the knowledge of the house of the victim E, and there was no intention to intrude into a residence. In the case of refusing to take a residence intrusion against the victim E, the victim and the F entered the house of the said victim with the consent of the victim as a friendly relationship with the victim. (B) The crime of intrusion upon a residence and non-compliance with the escape order was committed by misapprehending the legal principles, and the defendant agreed at the stage of investigation with the victims of each of the facts charged in the instant case.

(c)

The Defendant, at the time of each of the facts charged in the instant case, had physical and mental weakness, such as alcohol cogncy, glock, and fluor, and had a considerable quantity of alcohol, and had a considerable amount of alcohol to discern things or to make decisions, or had a weak mental or physical loss or mental weakness.

(d)

The punishment sentenced by the court below to the defendant (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, the defendant did not clearly confirm whether the house intending to enter the time is the house of the person, and without seeking confirmation of the resident's intention, opened the door and immediately enters the house of another person without seeking confirmation as to whether the house intending to enter the time, and even if the house of the person was the house of the person, it is difficult to conclude that the defendant under the influence of alcohol naturally consented to the entry of the house of another person. Accordingly, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

2) According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court in response to the victim E’s housing intrusion, and the refusal to leave, the lower court requested the Defendant to drink the alcohol on September 28, 2017.