The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court was justifiable to have found the Defendant guilty of violating the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint residential intrusion) among the facts charged in the instant case.

In so doing, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on crimes of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint residence intrusion

In addition, pursuant to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for more than ten years is imposed, an appeal may be filed on the grounds of unfair sentencing. As such, in this case where a more minor sentence is imposed against the defendant, the argument that the sentence is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

Meanwhile, the assertion that there was an error by misapprehending the legal principles on the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint property damage) is not a legitimate ground for appeal, as the defendant asserts in the final appeal that the court below did not consider it as the ground for appeal or ex officio.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.