The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. In light of the following circumstances, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby finding the Defendant guilty.

The defendant had access to apartment buildings of the victim to collect claims in a lawful way, and does not have access to apartment buildings for the purpose of crime.

Even if the defendant's act constitutes a crime of intrusion upon residence, it is nothing more than that of the defendant, and that of the victim's apartment visit several times to collect the claim, the defendant's act is justified as an act that can be permitted under the social norms.

2. Determination

A. In the crime of intrusion upon residence, housing refers not to simply refer to a house itself, but to the above summary, including the garden.

Therefore, an elevator used for public use in multi-family housing, such as a multi-household house, multi-household house, apartment house, apartment house, etc., and an elevator, stairs, and corridor are essential parts for each household or household used as a residence, and are expected to be supervised and managed by the residents in their daily lives and to protect de facto residential peace. Thus, barring any special circumstance, an elevator inside multi-family housing, such as multi-household house, multi-household house, apartment house, apartment house, etc., and an elevator, common stairs, and corridor constitute a "human’s residence", which is an object of a residential intrusion, and intrusion against the residents’ explicit and implied intent constitutes a crime of intrusion upon residence (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do435, Sept. 10, 200), and the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below and the trial court’s duly adopted and investigated by evidence, namely, the defendant and the father of the victim in advance (hereinafter “Defendant et al.”).