The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, the crime of intrusion upon a structure is established, since the Defendant was located on the floor of a male urinald Area (hereinafter “instant toilet”) corresponding to a part of a toilet in Ulsan-gu building C (hereinafter “instant building”) in Ulsan-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “the instant toilet”). As such, the crime of intrusion upon a room was established, or the victim was brought in a toilet to view the sound of the victim’s body. Thus, the crime of intrusion upon a structure was established.

Nevertheless, the court below judged that the defendant could not be recognized to have invaded on the toilet of this case and its summary, and sentenced the defendant not guilty of the facts charged of this case. Thus, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the following circumstances are acknowledged.

1) The instant building is owned by the Defendant’s wife, and the Defendant and his wife operate a restaurant on the first floor of the instant building, and the victim served as an employee in the mobile phone agency on the first floor of the instant building. 2) When entering the gate of the instant building into the 2nd floor and going to the gate of the instant building, the toilet of this case is installed following the stairs and the gate.

3) The toilets of this case are installed with paintings, etc. deemed to be owned by the Defendant’s husband and wife, and other things are loaded. 4) The toilets of this case are installed with a urinal for men in front of the toilets of this case, and the toilets of this case and the urinals for men have some strings before the toilets of this case and the urinals for men.

In addition, there is no door between the main gate and the toilet of this case.

5 The defendant did not enter the toilet directly when the victim enters the toilet. However, the defendant tried to enter the toilet where the victim enters the toilet outside of the toilet of this case.