The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Since the crime of intrusion upon residence is a de facto legal interest to protect the peace of residence, if the crime has been committed to the extent that it can harm the peace of the real residence which residents enjoy, it satisfies the requirements of crime composition.

In the crime of intrusion upon residence, the term “residential” includes the summary of the said crime, which clearly reveals that the manager of the surrounding land adjacent to the house does not merely refer to the house itself, but is provided for the use of the house by installing a door and fence, etc. on the boundary with the outside and is not allowed without permission from the outside (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Do1092, Apr. 24, 2001; 2009Do14643, Apr. 29, 201). The term “act that does not violate the social rules” in Article 20 of the Criminal Act refers to an act that is permissible in light of the overall spirit of legal order or the social ethics or social norms surrounding the house.

Whether a certain act is justified as an act that does not contravene social norms, and the illegality is excluded should be determined individually by examining the specific circumstances on the basis of the purpose and rational consideration under the concrete circumstances.

In order to recognize such a legitimate act, the following requirements are met: (a) legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act; (b) reasonableness of the means or method; (c) balance between the protected interests and the infringed interests and the protected interests; (d) urgency; and (e) supplementary nature that there is no other means or method than the act (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do300, Sept. 26, 2003, etc.). The lower court, based on the circumstances stated in its reasoning, stated in its reasoning, determined that the victim used the instant house as a residence; (d) the Defendant used the said house as a dwelling against the victim’s will; and (e) the Defendant has harmed the peace of the victim’s dwelling; and (e) even in light of the relationship between the Defendant and the victim