All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles) the place where the Defendants entered is a restaurant permitted to enter the general public, and the Defendants’ entry was contrary to the victim’s intent.

The defendants do not have such a purpose as to take photographs, not to be taken for the purpose of taking photographs, but to have such purpose.

In full view of the facts that the Defendants cannot be viewed as illegal purposes, the Defendants’ act of this case does not constitute “infringed” or constitutes justifiable acts that do not violate social rules and thus, illegality is excluded.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles or affecting the conclusion of judgment.

2. Even if ordinary people’s access to a restaurant is permitted, if a crime of intrusion upon residence is committed against the explicit or presumed intent of the business owner (Supreme Court Decision 95Do2674 delivered on March 28, 1997). In light of the above legal principles, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, it can be recognized that the defendants entered the restaurant of the victim for the purpose of photographing photographs against the victim’s presumed intent, and it is difficult to view that the defendants’ act in this case constitutes a legitimate act and thus, the illegality of the defendants’ act constitutes a justifiable act, and the conclusion of the court below finding the defendants guilty of the facts charged in this case is justifiable, and there is no misconception of the facts alleged by the defendants or there is no

Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion is rejected.

① Defendant A was the victim’s in-depth, and Defendant B was the victim’s in-depth, and the dispute was between the victim and the husband of the female at the time of the instant case and the inheritance property.

② The Defendants were dismissed by having the victim offer of a meal system by telephone, by entering a restaurant of the victim of a single lane.