The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the instant case, the misunderstanding of the facts and legal principles did not recognize that the act of entering and leaving the apartment corridor, which is an official space, was a common entrance or a stairs that anyone could have access without any special control, constitutes a crime of intrusion upon residence, and thus, there was no intention or illegality of intrusion.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine that found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, thereby adversely affecting the judgment.

B. In light of the various sentencing conditions of this case where sentencing is unfair, the sentence of a fine of one million won imposed by the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant also asserted the same purport, and the lower court, based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated, found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case on the ground that the Defendant’s act of entering the present site and stairs of the instant apartment against the presumed intention of the victim, who is a resident of the instant apartment, constitutes a crime of intrusion upon residence, and that the Defendant’s intention or illegality is recognized.

In light of the above evidence, a thorough examination of the circumstances presented by the court below in light of the above evidence is just in rejecting the defendant's assertion based on such circumstances and finding the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case, and there are errors as alleged by the defendant.

subsection (b) of this section.

Ultimately, the defendant's mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles are without merit.

B. In full view of the grounds for sentencing indicated in the instant argument and the record, the lower court’s sentencing against the Defendant may be asserted by the Defendant.