The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Legal principles 1) The Defendant, at the request of the victim, who is a loan consultant of G Bank, sold 2 officetels around December 2016, but caused damage because of difficult resale of the right to sell buildings. The victim promised to resell the right to sell buildings by November 23, 2018, or transfer the officetel to his/her father’s name. However, the victim did not contact with the Defendant after sending the text message that the victim cannot transfer the officetel to his/her father’s name against his/her wife. In order to solve the problem by directly communicating the wife’s wife, the Defendant found the apartment where the victim was living in his/her husband and wife. In order to find out the problem, the Defendant’s consent was found in front of his/her house in order to divide this issue with “the victim,” and thus, the Defendant did not know the Defendant of the reason for his/her residential intrusion and the Defendant’s intention to visit his/her house, even if having expressed his/her reason for contact with the victim.”

3) Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles. B. The court below’s sentence of unfair sentencing (700,000 won of fine and one year of suspended execution is too unreasonable.

2. Legal principles.