(a) If one of the residents has consented, but enters the residence contrary to the intention of another resident, the sex of the crime of intrusion upon residence;

(b)the nature of the offence of intrusion upon residence when entering a residence with the consent of the wife for the purpose of adultery (affirmative) among the absence of male convenience;

A. The legal interest protected in the crime of intrusion under the Criminal Act is not the legal concept of a right of residence, but it is a de facto freedom and peace in a private living relationship and has the right to enjoy peaceful enjoyment in the residence. However, if the consent of one person is contrary to the intention of another resident directly or indirectly, his/her access to the residence is contrary to the intention of another resident, i.e., peace in the residence of a person against his/her will, and peace in the control and management of the residence, and therefore, the crime of intrusion upon residence is established.

B. Even if one of the neighbors is absent, the above legal principles do not affect the above legal principles, so long as the control and management relationship between the husband exists in appearance even if the husband enters the residence with the permission of the wife's temporary absence, it is reasonable to view that the husband still exists in the control and management relationship with the husband's residence for the purpose of common understanding is against the husband's will. Thus, even if the wife consented, it is against the husband's will to enter the residence for the purpose of common sense. Therefore, even if the wife consented, the de facto peace in the husband's residence was broken, and therefore, the crime of intrusion upon the husband

Article 319(1) of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Cheongju District Court Decision 82No336 delivered on February 4, 1983

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Cheongju District Court Panel Division.

The prosecutor's grounds of appeal are examined.

The legal interest of the crime of intrusion upon residence under the Criminal Code is not the legal concept of right of residence, but the freedom and peace of residence in the private life and has the right to enjoy peace and peace in the residence. However, if one person's consent is directly or indirectly contrary to the intention of another resident, access to the residence is a result of undermining the peace of residence, i.e., the control and peace of management of the residence, and even if there is only one person among the persons living together, the above legal principle does not affect even if there is no one person living together, as long as the control and management relationship of the residence exists externally. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the husband still remains in the control and management relationship of the residence of the husband even if he enters the residence with the consent of the wife with the consent of the wife, and even if he was found to go against the husband's will, even if the husband's consent was given, it is against the husband's peace and peace in the residence of the wife, and thus, it is established.

However, the court below determined that the defendant's entry into the residence of the person without going against the will of the non-indicted person who is the wife of the person in question for the purpose of communication before the victim returns to the house for the purpose of communication does not harm the peace of residence as long as he enters the residence with the consent of the person in question from different opinions. Thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the infringement of the peace of residence of multiple residents, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment by taking a different opinion from the member in question.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed and remanded, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kang Jong-young (Presiding Justice)