The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 100,000.

The above fines are imposed by the Defendants.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of legal principles or factual errors);

A. Since the victim’s house does not meet the above summary requirements, it cannot be the object of the crime of intrusion upon residence.

B. The crime of intrusion upon residence is not committed because the victim, who is a person with a right to residence, was not committed against the presumed intent of the victim.

C. The defendants' act of taking the defendants into the victim's house and diving constitutes legitimate acts that do not violate the social norms.

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

2. Although the Defendants alleged the same purport in the lower court’s judgment as to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the lower court rejected such assertion by taking into account the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated:

“1. In the crime of intrusion upon residence, “a structure,” which is the object of the act of intrusion, is not an object of intrusion upon residence, in light of the fact that the crime of intrusion upon residence is actually a legal interest protected by the law, the substance of the above summary includes not only the structure itself, but also the substance of the above summary attached thereto, in light of the fact that the crime of intrusion upon residence is established as a legal interest protected by the law. However, the above summary is objectively clearly revealed that the land adjacent to the structure, which is installed with a boundary with the outside, was provided for use of the structure, and the outside is not allowed to access without permission (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do14643, Apr. 29, 2010). According to evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, the victim’s artificial wall was not installed in the vicinity of his/her house, but has objectively clarified the boundaries with the outside, such as trees, reputation, plastic houses, plastic houses, etc., and the outside party and the outside party.