The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

The defendant does not pay the above fine.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal 1) The lower court’s determination that found the Defendant guilty of the following facts charged on the grounds of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehending the legal doctrine is unreasonable.

(1) Regarding the intrusion of residence, ① The front part of the instant officetel building does not constitute a victim’s residence.

② In the past, the Defendant posted the instant officetel to meet female-friendly households. At the time of the instant case, the Defendant was only engaged in the instant officetel in the victim’s officetels in order to receive a return of salt ties brought by the Hague female-friendly households. There was no intention to intrude into the victim’s residence.

(2) While the Defendant was arrested in the course of committing the violation of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act (the adjacent disturbance), the Defendant did not evade the disturbance for about 40 minutes as indicated in the facts charged.

2) The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 3 million) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. The prosecutor, ex officio, requested the court to change the contents of the instant facts charged in exchange for changes in the indictment, and this court permitted the change in the subject of the judgment.

The court below held that the changed subject matter and the remaining guilty part are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.

Since a single sentence is determined and sentenced, the judgment of the court below can no longer be maintained in its entirety.

In addition, according to the records, the defendant was sentenced to one year of imprisonment with prison labor on February 22, 2018 by the Suwon Flag Flag, by obstructing the performance of special official duties, etc., and the above judgment is recognized as finalized on August 7, 2018.

The crime of interference with the execution of a final and conclusive special official duties, etc., and the crime of this case shall be sentenced to punishment for the crime of this case by taking account of equity in the case of concurrent crimes under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act with regard to concurrent crimes after Article 37 of the Criminal Act.

In this respect, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is.

However, there are reasons for the above ex officio reversal, but the defendant's misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles are argued.