The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In misunderstanding the facts and legal principles, the Defendant: (a) opened a door to the victim’s wife E and entered the victim’s house to the victim’s inside; and (b) entered the victim’s house against the victim’s will; and (c) entered the victim’

subsection (b) of this section.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) The Defendant asserted the same purport in the lower court.

The lower court did not accept the Defendant’s assertion on the grounds of the circumstances stated in its reasoning.

(2) The lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable in full view of the following circumstances revealed by comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court in light of the circumstances alleged by the lower court.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

(A) The victim and the victim's wife E consistently stated that they were fluorous in the time and place stated in the facts constituting the crime as indicated in the judgment of the court below [the prosecutor requested a summary order on the facts constituting the crime that the defendant and E had inflicted bodily harm on the part of the time and place stated in the facts constituting the crime as stated in the judgment of the court below (hereinafter "related case") from the police investigation stage to the court of the court below, such as "the defendant opened the victim's house under the influence of alcohol and opened the victim's house door and breaths, and they did not open the statement to the defendant."

(B) On the other hand, at the police investigation stage of the relevant case, the Defendant first stated that “the victim’s house entered the room” was “(35,36 pages of evidence records). However, at the time of the investigation, the Defendant stated that “I opened the door because I would find the victim’s house,” and that “I would open the door because I would like to find the victim’s house” (73 pages of evidence records).