The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The Defendant alleged misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles has stayed in the instant marina site where the Defendant had a share in his/her mother’s funeral, but did not intrude into the victim D’s residence, and did not have any intent to commit a crime of intrusion. In addition, even if the Defendant entered the victim’s residence which was originally occupied by unauthorized occupant, the lower court convicted the Defendant by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, and sentenced him/her guilty.

The court below's sentence (the fine of 500,000 won) against the defendant claiming unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

Judgment

In the judgment of the misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of the legal principles, a residence intrusion crime is established in the crime of entering the residence, not merely refers to a house itself, but also includes the surrounding land, etc., and since the crime of entering the residence is a de facto benefit and protection of the peace of the residence, the issue of whether a resident or a person who has a right to a residence or a simple residence does not depend on the establishment of the crime, and even if a person who has no right to occupancy has a right to a residence or a simple residence is possessed in the building, etc., the peace of the residence should be protected. Thus, in realizing the right, if a person has intrudes on the residence or a structure without following the procedure prescribed by the Act, the crime of entering the residence is established. Even if a person who has access to the residence is permitted due to the relationship with the resident

(See Supreme Court Decision 83Do1429 Decided April 24, 1984, and Supreme Court Decision 201Do8349 Decided October 13, 201, etc.). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court in this case, the victim set up a tree door at the entrance of the instant marina site in around 2008, and indicated the relevant boundary. The Defendant was the mother-child funeral at the time of the instant case.