The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In other words, the Defendant’s act does not constitute a residential intrusion because the Defendant, by mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, entered the victim’s house with the victim’s permission.

Even if not, the defendant's act constitutes a self-help act under the Criminal Code and thus, the illegality of the defendant's act is excluded.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts and legal principles.

B. The punishment of the lower judgment that was unfair in sentencing (an amount of KRW 1.5 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. Legal doctrine is that the crime of intrusion upon a residence is a legal interest protected by the de facto peace of the residence, and a crime of intrusion upon a residence may be established not only when it goes against the explicit intent of the resident or manager, but also when it goes against the constructive intent. Even if there are multiple persons with a right to residence, the crime of intrusion upon a residence may be established if such consent is directly or indirectly contrary to the intention of another resident (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2011Do8349, Oct. 13, 201; 83Do685, Jun. 26, 1984).

(1) While the Defendant urged the victim to repay his/her obligation to the victim, he/she returned to the victim’s house in order to cause contact with the victim to be well known, and divided discussions about E and the obligation of the victim in the victim’s house, and entered the toilet, and entered the victim’s room without permission of E after departure from the toilet, and entered the room without permission of E (the Defendant entered the room of the victim).

The argument is asserted.

However, E consistently denies it from the investigation process, and E is a conversation with the defendant.