The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

A seized knife (No. 1) shall be confiscated.

The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the Defendant and the person who filed a medical care and custody claim (hereinafter “Defendant”) mismisunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine (as to attempted intrusion upon residence), the Defendant did not have any mind to enter the residence of the victim G (hereinafter “victim”); and (b) there was no memory with the entrance door of the above residence.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of attempted residential intrusion even though he did not intend to intrude the victim's residence, was erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles as to the intention of the crime of intrusion upon residence or by misapprehending the legal principles.

The punishment sentenced by the court below (one year of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

The sentence of the prosecutor (unfair sentencing) sentenced by the court below is too unfortunate and unfair.

We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal by the defendant and prosecutor prior to the judgment.

In the first instance trial, the prosecutor filed a claim for the medical care and custody for the Defendant, and the first instance court decided to jointly examine the medical care and custody case with the Defendant case, and the judgment of the medical care and custody case shall be sentenced simultaneously with the judgment of the Defendant case (the main text of Article 12(2) of the Medical Care and Custody Act). As examined below, the first instance court accepted the request for the medical care and custody for the Defendant, and thus, the lower court cannot be maintained any longer.

However, the lower judgment’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine is still subject to the judgment of the lower court despite the above reasons for reversal, and this is to be examined below.

The judgment of the court below on the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles also asserted the same as the grounds for appeal in this part. The court below, based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated, causes a dispute with the neighbors of B lending in which the Defendant had the victim’s residence, i.e., the police officer.