The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case on a different premise is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, although the defendant did not enter the victim's office.

2. Determination

가. 이 사건 공소사실의 요지 피고인은 2015. 8. 3. 19:23경 포천시 C에 있는 피해자 D의 집에 이르러, 아무런 이유 없이 피해자에게 “썅년아, 씹할 년아, 개 같은 년아”라고 욕설을 하며 열린 대문을 통하여 그곳 마당에까지 들어가 피해자의 주거에 침입하였다.

B. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below: ① The victim, from the investigative agency to the court of the court below, made a relatively concrete and consistent statement from the court of the court below, to the effect that “the victim left the house before the house, and the defendant, who was not adequate for the victim’s father and appraisal, forced the victim to go into the house of the victim, and forced him to go into the house of the victim, but the defendant pushed the victim, and went into the house of the victim,” and ② The police officer E, upon receiving the victim’s 112 report, dispatched to the site at the time of the court of the court of the court below after receiving the victim’s 112 report, called “The victim was called to the scene after receiving a report on the victim’s disturbance, the defendant was in the front door of the victim’s house, and the victim was in the situation of locking the victim’s door within his house, and the defendant was called to enter the victim’s house to the victim’s house without his consent.”