The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds of appeal in this case is as follows: The L-based Housing (New Address: G in Ansan-dong, Dong-si, Dong-si, Dong-si, hereinafter “instant Housing”) owned by the defendant who is the south-do, but D, the south-do, transferred the registration name of the said land and housing to E, which is the wife of D by fraud.

The Defendant, with the help of neighboring residents, has managed and occupied the instant house.

Since the Defendant is a legitimate owner or possessor of the instant case, entry into the instant house cannot be a building intrusion, and it is false to report that D filed a complaint against the Defendant for an intrusion upon residence.

Therefore, it can not be said that the defendant filed a complaint against D as a crime of false accusation.

2. The purport of the Defendant’s complaint against the Defendant, which was initially determined D, was that the Defendant infringed on the instant house that he would rent to N and move into N on March 17, 2013. The charge of the crime of false accusation in this case was that D filed a complaint against the Defendant for the crime of intrusion of structure, and that the Defendant’s complaint constitutes a false accusation against D and thus, constitutes a false accusation.

Therefore, the issue of whether the instant accusation is established depends on whether the content of the Defendant’s crime of intrusion upon the structure of the Defendant, which was filed by D, is a fact, and if so, whether the Defendant was aware of the fact at the time of filing a complaint with D as a crime of false accusation.

In addition, the defendant's entry into the house of this case around March 17, 2013 is recognized. However, since the house of this case was owned by himself/herself, the crime of intrusion on a structure is not established. Since the crime of intrusion on a residence is a protected legal interest, the resident or manager has the right to reside in or manage the building.