The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The entry of a victim of misunderstanding of facts into the house is inconsistent, but does not infringe upon the victim’s house with an intent to commit an unlawful act.

B. Legal doctrine misunderstandings, even if having entered the Republic of Korea to commit a wrongful act, it does not constitute a crime of intrusion because it was not for the purpose of committing a crime, but for the consent of the person with a right to residence.

(c)

The punishment of the court below (one year of imprisonment with prison labor, four months of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On October 25, 2015, the Defendant: (a) around 03:50 on October 25, 2015, at the victim D’s house located in Chuncheon C and 202 (hereinafter “the instant studio”); (b) the victim invadedd the victim’s house through the entrance to meet the victim’s wife E with the party related to the stude between the house and the stude; and (c) the Defendant invadedd the victim’s house against the victim’s will.

B. The lower court’s judgment held that: (a) if one person has multiple residence rights and one person’s consent directly or indirectly is contrary to the intention of another resident, access to the residence is likely to undermine the peace of residence, i.e., control of and peace in management of the residence of a person against his/her will; and (b) a crime of intrusion on the residence is established, and even if there is no one of the persons living together, the foregoing legal doctrine does not affect so long as the control relationship of the residence is acknowledged to exist externally

Therefore, even if her husband enters a residence with the consent of the her husband during the absence of a time, even if her husband enters the residence with the consent of the her husband, it still remains in the control and management relationship with the her husband, and it seems reasonable to enter the residence for the purpose of common sense of society. Therefore, even if her husband consented, her actual peace in her husband's residence was broken even if her husband's residence was approved, in such a case, the crime of intrusion upon her husband's residence is established (see Supreme Court Decision 83Do685, Jun. 26, 1984).