The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Considering the fact-finding or misunderstanding of legal principles, the Defendant and the victim have been aware of it for a long time, and the victim has lived without locking the door for access of the recipient, the Defendant’s entry into the victim’s house does not constitute a crime of intrusion upon residence by complying with the victim’s implied consent.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (the fine of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In regard to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the crime of intrusion upon residence is established if the victim enters the residence of another person against the will of the resident. In this case, the resident's intention includes not only explicit cases but also implied cases. Furthermore, according to surrounding circumstances, it may be presumed that the opposing opinion of the resident was based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below. There is a dispute as to whether the victim bears the obligation to pay money on behalf of the victim between the defendant and the victim, namely, ① there is a dispute as to whether the victim bears the obligation to pay money to the defendant on behalf of the victim, ② the defendant must pay money to the victim before the victim is viewed as the victim by introducing H in his house and age. The defendant must pay money to the victim. In addition, if the victim fails to give money, the victim seems to have known that the defendant did not have known his/her residential convenience to the extent that he/she did not have known his/her living.