The judgment of the court below (including acquittal in the grounds) shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendant

(F) The sentence of imprisonment (six months of imprisonment) of the court below is too unreasonable.

The facts charged as stated in 1/3, 4, 6, 8, 11, 14, and 16 Nos. 1, 1, 4, 6, 6, 8, 14, and 16 of the list of crimes attached to the judgment of the court below are as follows: (a) the windows of the houses the victims live by entering the dwelling section, parking lot, or the summary of the above crime; and (b) the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts or by misapprehending legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

The sentence of unfair sentencing by the court below is unfair because it is too uneasible.

Judgment

In the crime of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, the "building", which is the object of the act of intrusion, shall include not only the building itself, but also the summary of the building attached thereto, in 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. However, it should be clearly revealed that the above summary is the neighboring land adjacent to the structure, which is installed by a fence, etc. and provided for use by the outside and boundary of the structure, and it is objectively evident that the outside cannot enter without permission

Therefore, even if land annexed to a building, which contributes to the use of the building, is a land annexed to the building, if the boundary of the building can easily go through through, because there is no partition or control by human resources or physical facilities, etc., it is difficult to view that the outside person’s access is restricted objectively and clearly, barring any other special circumstance, it does not belong to the object of the crime of intrusion upon residence.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do14643, Apr. 29, 2010). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the evidence is considered as follows.