The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In relation to the crime No. 1-A of the facts stated in the judgment of the court below, the defendant entered the joint signature door of the apartment where the victim is living, and did not enter the victim's house, but did not enter the victim's house. 2) In relation to the crime No. 1-2 of the facts stated in the judgment of the court below, the defendant's act of entering the above apartment's joint signature house and elevator does not infringe on the victim's house, but does not violate the victim's intention, and therefore, it does not constitute a crime of intrusion upon the victim's house.

B. The lower court’s sentence on the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. Regarding the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the court below's determination as to the argument related to paragraph 1 (a) of the criminal facts in the judgment of the court below is reasonable to see that the defendant went to the front door of the victim, considering the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly examined by the court below, i.e., (i) the victim: (a) the victim divided the first class of the defendant, who was a substitute engineer, and opened the front door door; (b) the defendant put the gift into the front door; and (c) the defendant submitted a photograph of the gift with the front door; and (b) the defendant's hand and arms were at least made inside the front door of the victim's house in light of the victim's statement and the location where the gift was put into the front door. Accordingly, this part of the defendant's assertion that the crime of entering a residence chips is not established, but merely includes the summary of the above house's residence, such as the residence itself.

Therefore, it is a multi-household detached house.