The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding ① The first instance court invadedd on October 30, 2012 by the Defendant around October 30, 2012

The Piano Teaching School for the operation of the victim designated by the person was purchased as the income of the defendant, and since it was before the victim and the defendant are living separately, it was jointly owned by the defendant and the victim with the common property of the couple.

Therefore, the crime of intrusion on residence is not established.

② From around 02:00 to around 03:00 on December 23, 2012, the victim reported the victim’s mematic south and Kakakao Stockholm to run the Kakaoo Stockholm and the Defendant changed the victim’s mobile phone, and the Defendant did not go beyond the floor by pushing the victim’s shoulder.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (two years of suspended sentence for one year of imprisonment, suspension of qualifications for one year, forfeiture) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant's act of intrusion upon residence constitutes a crime of intrusion upon residence when considering the following circumstances: (a) the manager of ftel 1105 operated by D is D; (b) the time when the defendant entered the above teaching school is not generally permitted at around 07:25; (c) even if the defendant is permitted to enter the teaching school, if the defendant enters the school for the purpose of crime (see Supreme Court Decisions 83Do1394, Jul. 12, 1983; 95Do2674, Mar. 28, 197; 2006Do7079, Mar. 15, 207).

This part of the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

2) The following circumstances acknowledged by the court below’s duly adopted and examined evidence, namely, D, the date and time stated in the court below’s judgment.