The Defendants are not guilty. The summary of the judgment is publicly announced.

The Defendants of the instant facts charged operate “C agency”.

At around 22:00 on May 18, 2015, Defendants parked on the front of the victim’s house in front of the victim’s house because they did not pay KRW 33,600 to the victim E (the victim E, 31 years of age) who resides in the area. They knew that the victim was able to return home within the vehicle, and the victim was able to turn home within the victim’s house, and invaded jointly with the victim’s house by jointly taking the front of the victim’s house entrance, such as d, twice the entrance and knife the knife, and knife the entrance.

Judgment

The Defendants denied the purport that, as stated in the facts charged, the victim’s door door was set up and took the beginning door, but did not intrude upon the residence.

"Intrusion" referred to in the crime of intrusion upon residence prescribed by Article 319(1) of the Criminal Act means entering a residence against the resident's will, i.e., physical intrusion.

The part of stairs and corridor used for public use in multi-family housing, such as multi-household houses, multi-household houses, etc. and multi-household houses, which need to protect the peace of residence, may be deemed as falling under “human’s residence,” which is the object of the crime of intrusion. However, in the instant case, the Defendants had access to the house in which the victim was living for the purpose of the crime of intrusion. For that reason, even if the stairs for common use were to be installed for the purpose of the delivery, the Defendants can be deemed as the area where the victim consented to the entry. Accordingly, even in order to prohibit the payment of the milk from the victim who did not pay the milk as in the instant case, there was the victim’s explicit

It is reasonable to regard the defendants as the entry and exit of the defendants, and to urge the payment of the milk price that the defendants should have to receive fairly.