The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant did not enter the victim J's residence for the purpose of adultery (it is nothing more than an inappropriate relationship when entering the above victim's residence without transit) and even though he did not have the intention of intrusion, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of intrusion, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding them.

2. Determination

A. The legal interest protected by the Criminal Act in the crime of intrusion upon residence is not the legal concept of right to residence, but the right to enjoy peacefully all the people who live together in their residence as a de facto freedom and peace of residence in a private life relationship.

If the consent of one person is contrary to the intention of another resident directly or indirectly, the entry to the residence by the person against his/her will would impair the peace of the residence, i.e., the control and management of the residence. Thus, the crime of intrusion is established as long as the control and management of the residence is recognized as externally existing even in the absence of one of the persons living together. Thus, it is deemed that the husband still remains in the control and management relationship with the husband's residence, even if he/she enters the residence with his/her consent under the purpose of the simple passage among the temporary absence, even if he/she enters the residence with his/her husband's consent. Thus, it seems that the husband's consent was contrary to the husband's will.

Even if the husband's dwelling was de facto broken, the husband's dwelling was broken.

As such, the crime of intrusion upon residence is established in this case.

(Supreme Court Decision 83Do685 delivered on June 26, 1984). B.

In addition to the legal principles established by the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the defendant's access to the above apartment is against the victim's will for the purpose of communication.