All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant (1) misunderstanding of facts does not infringe a victim’s residence against the victim’s will, but rather it is nothing more than the victim’s direct time, but only the victim was pushed ahead of the dispute.

(2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. A prosecutor (1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles has been acquitted on the charge of violating the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, but a sufficient conviction may be found in light of the victim’s statement. Thus, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in matters of mistake of facts

(2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing is too unjustifiable.

2. Determination

A. (1) The defendant's assertion of the misunderstanding of facts and the judgment thereof (1) as to the crime of intrusion upon residence is practically the benefit and protection of the peace of residence. As such, the issue of whether the resident or manager has the authority to reside in or manage the building, etc. does not affect the nature of the crime. If a person who has access to the building at ordinary times is admitted due to the relation with the resident or manager but enters the residence against the explicit or presumed intention of the resident or manager, then the crime of intrusion upon residence is established. In the absence of special circumstances, the method of intrusion itself should be deemed to go against the above intent, barring special circumstances.

(See Supreme Court Decision 94Do336 delivered on September 15, 1995, etc.). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant was at the time of the defendant's death while living together with the victim at around 18:00 on the day of this case (the defendant's act of taking the victim at the time of the above temporary closure was prosecuted as a crime of violence, but the decision of dismissal was rendered by the court below after withdrawing the victim's desire to punish).