The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts (i.e., paragraph 1-A of the judgment of the court below): The defendant entered into D newcomese around 18:00 on July 14, 2014; however, the victim E was mistaken for not having the right to possess it; and the victim was able to hear the opinion that he was doing construction due to the collision of D newcomese building owned by the defendant; and the victim was entering into D newcomese for the purpose of affixing a photograph, and there was no intention to intrude the residence.

B. Paragraph 1-B of the judgment below and Paragraph 2 of the judgment of the court below: The defendant did not intrude the victim's residence on July 17, 2014 and did not inflict any injury on the victim F and E as stated in the judgment of the court below.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (2 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. In relation to the part of the crime of intrusion upon residence on July 14, 2014, since the crime of intrusion upon residence is practically protected by the law of peace of residence, the establishment of the crime does not depend on whether the resident or the recipient has a right to live or cross-router in the building, etc., and even if the person without a right to possess is the possession of the victim, the peace of residence should be protected. Thus, regardless of whether the victim E lawfully occupied the new house at the time of the crime of this case, the crime of intrusion upon residence constitutes the crime of intrusion upon residence unless the victim intrudes the new house without the consent of the victim, regardless of whether the victim Gap lawfully occupied the new house at the time of the crime of this case, and according

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is just, and the defendant's assertion of mistake is

B. In full view of the following circumstances, i.e., the victim E and F investigation agencies and the court below’s statement, which were duly adopted and investigated by the court below in relation to the part of intrusion and bodily injury on July 17, 2014, at the time of the instant crime.