The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal principles, the Defendant was guilty of infringing upon the residence of the victim C, who is the spouse of D, by 101 the above multi-family house, which is the residence of D, through the gate and the entrance door, which was opened in the instant multi-family house in order to talk about D at the time of the instant case. Even though there was no intention to intrude upon the residence of the victim C, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of infringing on the residence of this case by misapprehending the legal principles.

B. Even if the instant facts charged were to be found guilty, the sentence of the lower court (the amount of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (i) In determining the misunderstanding of the legal doctrine on the charge of intrusion upon residence, the residence does not simply refer to the house itself, but includes the above summary, such as the capacity.

Therefore, since elevators and stairs and corridors used for public use in multi-family housing, such as multi-household houses, multi-household houses, apartment houses, and apartment houses, are necessarily annexed to the exclusive part of each household or household used for residential purpose, and the residents are expected to monitor and manage in their daily lives and to protect de facto residential peace, it is necessary to protect such residents. Thus, barring any special circumstance, any elevator inside multi-family housing, such as multi-household houses, multi-household houses, apartment houses, and apartment houses, common stairs, and corridor constitute "human habitation," which is an object of a crime of intrusion upon residence, and intrusion against the residents' explicit and implied intent constitutes a crime of intrusion upon residence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2009Do435, Sept. 10, 2009; 2009Do14643, Apr. 29, 2010).