beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Fact-misunderstanding, misunderstanding of legal principles, the Defendant visited several times of the instant house as the actual manager of the Mineyang-si E (hereinafter “instant house”) and entered the relationship between D wood and monthly tax, which is the other party to the monthly contract. As such, the Defendant’s entry into the instant house does not constitute a intrusion upon residence, and even if the Defendant’s brupted details are different from the fact, the lower court convicted the Defendant of the instant facts charged. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and misapprehending the legal doctrine.
B. The sentencing of the lower court is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The lower court determined as to the assertion, such as mistake of facts, etc., based on the adopted evidence: (i) there is a need for the Defendant to maintain and repair the instant house as a manager of the instant house or to receive rent, etc., as follows.
Even if the Defendant could not enter the house of this case without the consent of the lessee of this case, the victim, who is the lessee of this case, does not allow the Defendant to enter the house of this case on the date stated in Paragraph 1 of the criminal facts stated in the judgment below. ② The lessee of this case appears to have allowed the Defendant to enter the house of this case where the Defendant accompanied with D, who is the lessee, or obtained D's permission. However, the Defendant did not enter the house of this case on the date stated in Paragraph 1 of the criminal facts stated in the judgment below and entered the house of this case on the house of this case by himself without obtaining the consent of D in advance. In full view of the fact that the Defendant entered the house of this case into the house of this case on the date stated in Paragraph 1 of the criminal facts in the judgment below, and it appears that the Defendant did not have obtained the consent of D in advance.
In light of the records, we affirm the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below as just and it is alleged by the defendant in the judgment below.