The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles from around B, 2011, Defendant was living separately with the victim, but still a co-resident of the instant manager. As such, the Defendant’s entry to the instant manager cannot be deemed to constitute a crime of intrusion upon residence on the ground that he/she entered the instant manager.

Even if he did not have the right of residence for the defendant, the defendant had a sufficient reason to believe that he was the person having the right of residence, so there was no intention of entering the residence.

Nevertheless, the court below convicted the defendant, and there is an error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake or misapprehension of the legal principle, the legal interest of the crime of intrusion upon residence is a de facto peace for the residence which the resident in the dwelling in question enjoys, and whether the resident or the recipient has the legal authority to reside in the building, etc. does not depend on the establishment of the crime, and even if illegal possession is held under private law, if the right holder intrudes on the residence or the structure without following due process to exclude it, the crime of intrusion upon residence is established.

(2) On December 12, 2012, the lower court, on March 8, 2012, took full account of the following facts: (a) around March 8, 1983, in order to separate the victim from the victim, the victim, after leaving the instant manager and the instant manager’s personal identification number from the instant manager and the instant manager’s personal identification number, continued to reside in the instant manager; and (b) on December 12, 2012, the conciliation was concluded to proceed to divorce with the victim; and (c) the Defendant entered the instant manager on January 9, 2013 by using the key, without knowing the password of the instant manager’s personal identification number, and entered the instant manager’s personal identification number.