The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal by the defendant;

A. Of the facts charged in the case of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the house unit where the Defendant entered was an abandoned house, and the solid water collection shop frequently fell under the redevelopment area, and the Defendant also entered to collect the stolen water of an abandoned house without any reason, so there was no intention to enter the house, and with respect to the injury, the victim was unable to put the Defendant’s hand into the Defendant’s hand without breathing and harming the Defendant’s breath, thereby getting the victim’s hand in the course of resistance. Thus, it constitutes self-defense.

Nevertheless, the court below found all of the charges of this case guilty, and the court below erred by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles that affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the grounds of unfair sentencing (the fine of two million won, No. 1 and No. 2) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. In regard to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, since the crime of intrusion upon residence is the protected legal interest of the law, the crime of intrusion upon residence is established if the act of entering the residence is reduced even though it is against the explicit or presumed intention of the resident or manager.

(대법원 2007. 8. 23. 선고 2007도2595 판결 참조). 원심이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거들을 종합하면, 피고인은 미리 준비해 간 드라이버와 배척(속칭 ‘빠루’, 이하 ‘배척’이라고 한다)을 소지하고 지하 1층, 지상 3층의 다세대주택 2층의 주거에 들어가 알루미늄 샷시 창문을 뜯어내려다가 건물 1층에 거주하고 있던 D에게 체포되었는바, 주거권자의 의사에 반하여 주거에 침입한 사실을 넉넉히 인정할 수 있으므로 이를 유죄로 인정한 원심 판단은 정당하고, 피고인의 주장은 이유 없다.

B. As to the assertion of misunderstanding legal principles, the defendant is another person.