The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. As to the crime of intrusion upon residence as indicated in the summary of the grounds for appeal, since the Defendant entered the victim’s house with the consent of the victim, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant infringed upon the victim’s house, and as to each crime of destruction as indicated in the judgment, the Defendant did not damage the glass window and the automatic locking device of the entrance, as stated in the judgment, since there was no fact-finding between the victim’s house and the date stated in the facts charged, the lower court convicted all of the charges

2. On June 5, 2015, the victim, consistently at the investigative agency and the trial court of the case, destroyed the door door of the victim’s residence in order to check whether there is a human body of the victim during the police report at around 20:00, and the victim left the door to the victim’s house without the victim’s consent, and went to the house without the victim’s consent. On June 15, 2015, the police officer called out upon receiving a report of the victim, was in accordance with the victim’s eviction order. On June 21:00, 2015, the victim destroyed the door door of the victim’s residence to check whether there is a human body of the victim during the police report. On June 19, 2015, the victim, at around 19:10, 2015, cut off the door by sticking the door to the victim’s house with the same exhauster, and installed the door door automatically.

As the statement is made, the statement is consistent and consistent, there is credibility because there is no part in its rationality, and it is supported by objective evidence such as the statement of 112 reported case processing, the statement of 112 reported case processing, the statement of 112 reported case processing, and the victim's photograph, etc. Thus, in full view of the evidence such as the above victim's statement, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant intrudes on the victim's residence and damages each of the free windows and automatic locking devices as stated in the

3. The Defendant’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, on the grounds that the appeal is groundless.