The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles cannot be readily concluded that the possession of a victim is a lawful possession worthy of protection. The room of this case is not the ownership of the defendant, and thus does not constitute a crime of intrusion on residence and a crime of obstructing the exercise of rights. The crime of destroying documents and the crime of intrusion on residence constitutes a legal competition relationship under which the crime of obstructing the exercise of rights constitutes ex post facto act or concurrent

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years of suspended execution in August, and eight hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. With respect to the assertion that the occupancy by the victim is not a legitimate one, the legal interest in the protection of the crime of intrusion of residence is established in a case where there are multiple persons who reside in the residence in question, and one person’s consent is directly or indirectly contrary to the intention of the other resident, the entry to the residence is a result of undermining the peace of residence, that is, the peace of the control and management of the residence of the person against the intention (see Supreme Court Decision 83Do685, Jun. 26, 1984; 83Do685, Apr. 26, 1987; 2007Do467, Apr. 26, 2007). Thus, the establishment of the crime of intrusion of residence is not affected by the establishment of the crime, and even if the right holder illegally occupies the residence or structure without following due process to exclude it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 82Do1363, Mar. 8, 1983; 2007Do466, Apr. 27, 2007).