The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding Defendant entered the victim’s house beyond the fence, but did not enter the house, and thus did not intrude into the residence.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (an amount of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Before the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant's ex officio, the prosecutor applied for the amendment of a bill of amendment to the effect that the prosecutor's "entry as a measure" among the facts charged in the trial at the trial at the trial at the trial at the trial at the trial at the trial at the trial at the trial at the trial at the court, and the subject of the judgment at the court at the time was changed

However, the defendant's assertion of mistake of the above facts is still included in the subject of this Court's trial.

B. As to the assertion of mistake of fact, if the crime of intrusion upon a residence is a de facto crime of protecting the peace of the residence, and the resident has committed such crime to the extent that it would prejudice the peace of the de facto residence that he enjoy, it shall be deemed that the elements of the crime meet the requirements. In the crime of intrusion upon a residence,

According to the court below's decision and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the Lessee's entrance and exit of the Defendant is separately installed from the gate to which the Lessee was the lessor, the Defendant entered the gate beyond the gate's entrance and exit, and the fact that the Lessee's entry and exit was the son's exclusive use of the gate. The Defendant's entry and exit can be acknowledged.

Examining these facts in light of the above legal principles, as long as the defendant enters the victim's door beyond the victim's wall, the crime of intrusion is established. Thus, the defendant's assertion of mistake is justified.