The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the Defendant did not assault the victim, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the assault among the facts charged in the instant case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts.

B. In light of the legal principles, the defendant is the legal couple with the victim, and the house of the victim was living together with the victim before the defendant was living separately from the victim, and the defendant was living with his child, so the defendant not only has the right to enter the victim's house, but also does not violate social rules, thereby establishing a crime of intrusion on residence. However, the court below found the defendant guilty of intrusion on residence among the facts charged in this case. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles.

(c)

Sentencing improper sentencing of the court below is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant can sufficiently recognize the fact that the defendant abusedd the victim, so this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. The lower court determined as to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged as a whole, namely, ① the Defendant, at the victim’s house around May 2014 and living together with E at a different place from that time, and ② the Defendant filed a divorce lawsuit against the victim; ② the Defendant was sentenced to a judgment dismissing the Defendant’s claim against the victim; ③ the Defendant sought the victim’s house together with E at the time of the instant crime, and the Defendant’s entry into the victim’s house was enforced by exercising physical power, even though the Defendant explicitly refused to enter the victim’s house, and the Defendant’s entry into the house for a long time on the ground of the non-wheeled relationship, was in violation of the peace of the victim’s de facto residence.

The decision was determined.

The court below's decision.