The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant entered the victim’s house to kill all women, friendly job offers, and communicate with each other, and thus there was no intention to commit an intrusion. Even if the instant act by the Defendant constitutes the elements of a crime of intrusion upon residence, it shall be deemed that the illegality is excluded as it does not contravene the social rules as stipulated under Article 20 of the Criminal Act.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the facts charged of this case is erroneous in misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s duly adopted and examined the judgment on the intention of intrusion upon residence: ① the Defendant and the victim have taken away for five years from 2011; ② the Defendant was in a state of hedging on October 29, 2018, which is the date of the instant crime; ② on October 2018, when the Defendant was in a school, the Defendant donated 2.5 million won to the Defendant at early 250,000 won to the Defendant, and the Defendant asked the Defendant to return the her abrut, and the Defendant would have rejected the Defendant’s request to return the her abrut to the Defendant, and even if it appears that it was difficult for the Defendant to find out the issue of monetary conflict, such as sending the Defendant’s message to the effect that “The Defendant would return the brut gift to him/her, and that the Defendant would not have any contact with the victim, ③ the Defendant would not have any contact with the victim outside of the instant crime.”