The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and four months.

except that, for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to Defendant 1’s misconception of facts), the Defendant returned to the house by the police who received the report of the victim at the time, and there was no fact between the victim’s house and the house of the victim, and the statement of the victim cannot be reliable, and the judgment of the court below which convicted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

B) As to the special confinement, the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant of this part of the charges on the ground that the victim did not know about the escape from the defendant at the time, and that the statement of the victim who could not have been reliable even though the defendant did not have taken custody of the victim is admissible as evidence, there is an error of misconception of facts. 2) The sentence (one year and four months of imprisonment) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the first instance court’s duly adopted and investigated by the evidence regarding the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts, it can be recognized that the Defendant returned to the police officer who was dispatched after receiving the victim’s report and returned to the police officer at the time, and entered the victim’s house through the entrance, which was not corrected between the victim and the victim again, and that such entry constitutes a crime of intrusion upon residence against the victim’s will.

Therefore, this part of the defendant and defense counsel's argument is without merit.

① The victim, from the investigative agency to the court of the trial, had been satisfyed with the Defendant at the time, but there was no dispute over the fact or continuing to exist, and on the day of the instant case, the Defendant continued to open the door, but did not open the door, reported to 112 later, and reported to the police officer.