The defendant shall be innocent.

The Defendant is a person who is not good between the victim B and neighbors, or from around 2018 to file a complaint against the victim due to property damage, etc. due to a mutual dispute over land boundary issues.

1. On August 20, 2018, the Defendant entered the victim’s house located in Cheongdo-gun C, Cheongdo-gun, and infringed upon the victim’s residence by arbitrarily entering the victim’s house with the intent to throw waste into the said site and the E site owned by the Defendant’s wife, located in the said site and boundary.

2. Around 08:00 on March 14, 2019, the Defendant came to and near the victim’s house as described in paragraph (1) and went to the victim’s house having no gate for the purpose of dumping wastes on the said E site, and intruded the victim’s residence.

3. On May 12, 2019, the Defendant entered the victim’s house in the vicinity of the victim’s house as described in paragraph (1) around A.M. and intruded on the victim’s residence by arbitrarily entering the victim’s house with no above gate for the purpose of dumping waste in the said E site.

2. In the crime of intrusion upon residence, the “building” which is the object of the act of intrusion upon residence includes not only the building itself, but also the summary of the above attached thereto within a strict sense in light of the fact that the crime of intrusion upon residence actually takes into account the peace of residence as a legal interest protected by the law. However, the above summary should be clearly revealed from the objective point of view that the land adjacent to the structure, which is installed with a fence, is offered for use by the outside and the boundary of the building, and is not allowed without permission of the outside.

(1) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the lower court’s determination that the Plaintiff’s access to a building constitutes “a neighboring land” refers to the Plaintiff’s access to a building that contributed to the use of the building. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the scope of access to the building, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, contrary to what is alleged in the ground of appeal.