The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant entered the apartment of this case to arrange the relation with the victim who was living in a de facto marital relationship, and thus, it does not constitute a crime of intrusion upon residence, and even if the defendant's act constitutes a crime of intrusion upon residence, it is dismissed as it constitutes an act that does not go against the social rules and thus,

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

2. The judgment of the court below is that the crime of intrusion upon a residence is a de facto legal interest protected by the law, and if the act of entering a residence is committed even though it is contrary to the explicit or presumed intention of a resident or manager, the crime of intrusion upon a residence is established (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do2595, Aug. 23, 2007). Further, the "act which does not violate social norms" prescribed in Article 20 of the Criminal Act refers to an act permissible in light of the overall spirit of legal order or the social ethics or social norms surrounding it, and thus, it refers to an act acceptable in light of the above legal principles. Thus, the court below rejected the judgment of the court below in light of the aforementioned legal principles, where a certain act meets the requirements such as the justification of the act, the means or method of the act, the reasonableness of the means or method of the act, the balance of the legal interests of the protection interest and the interests infringed upon, and the supplementary method or method other than the act, it constitutes a justifiable act (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do8530, Feb. 25, 2005).

However, the apartment of this case is not the defendant.