All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles) Defendant F, who was aware of the Defendant, transferred the possession of the instant apartment to the victim.

Therefore, at the time of the crime of this case, the victim possessed the apartment of this case.

Therefore, the defendant did not enter the apartment of this case, so the defendant entered the apartment of this case.

The crime of intrusion upon residence is not established.

In addition, the defendant changed the entrance knife and the number knife, but the damage of property is a justifiable act to avoid the unjust infringement of the victim's possession.

B. The prosecutor (1) misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the legal principles, and confirming whether the defendant entered the apartment of this case against the victim's will to possess the goods of the victim constitutes a residential search under Article 321 of the Criminal Act.

(2) The lower court’s sentence that is unfair in sentencing (an amount of KRW 300,000 suspension of sentence) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. Since the crime of intrusion upon residence is a de facto legal interest to protect the peace of residence, the issue of whether a resident or a person between citizens has a right to reside in a building, etc. does not depend on the establishment of a crime, and even if a person has no right to possess it, the peace of residence should be protected. Thus, the crime of intrusion upon residence is established even if a right holder intrudes on a building by means of self-help as an implementation of his/her right (see Supreme Court Decision 85Do122, Mar. 26, 1985, etc.). (b) The evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below is recognized as follows. In light of this, the following facts can be established in full view of the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, and the defendant had a right as a tenant to the apartment of this case since the settlement was not completed due to

Even after the victim was the victim, the apartment of this case is immediately after the F's director.