The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal is that the crime of intrusion upon residence is the legal interest protected by the law, so the issue of whether a resident or a guard has the right to reside in the building, etc. does not depend on the establishment of the crime, and even if a person without the right to possess it is the possession, the peace of the residence should be protected. Thus, even if the right holder intrudes on the building as a means of self-help as an enforcement of the right, the crime of intrusion upon residence is established. Thus, even if the owner of the house in this case is the defendant, the act of destroying the correction device of the house in this case which the victim had already occupied lawfully at the time of the crime and entering the house in this case

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, on the charges of this case.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is that the Defendant had lived in C and C (hereinafter “instant house”). On February 27, 2012, C sold the instant house to the victim E (n, 62 years of age) at KRW 20 million. From around that time, the Defendant began to occupy and reside in the instant house.

At around 17:50 on July 16, 2012, the Defendant opened an entrance and correction device of the instant house without the consent of the victim and intruded upon the victim’s residence.

B. As to the judgment of the court below, although the victim purchased the instant house from C, the above sales contract becomes null and void since C does not have the right to sell the instant house, the instant house is deemed to be owned by the defendant, and the victim, without any authority, has lawfully occupied the instant house against the defendant.