The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

1. Judgment on the defendant's misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A. In relation to the defendant's mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the defendant's residential intrusion 1) as stated in the judgment of the court below, as long as the defendant had met with the victim who is his spouse and thought him as his house, it cannot be an intrusion, and since the defendant confirmed that a group of persons who cannot be identified at the time enters the second floor entered the second floor, the defendant's act constitutes a justifiable act since he was frightd with a mind. Nevertheless, the judgment below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found this part of the facts charged guilty is erroneous by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to the admission of a victim to a residence, even though the victim clearly expressed his/her intent not to have access to the residence, such as changing all the locks to prevent the defendant from entering the residence before entering the residence of this case, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant invadedd the victim's residence by abnormal means through the second floor window of the victim.

In addition, the purpose of the defendant's assertion is not only to justify the peace of the victim's residential life and the infringement of the legal interest of the victim's residential life, but also to say that the defendant's above act is reasonable in the means and method, and such an intrusion cannot be deemed as an urgent and inevitable means.

Accordingly, the defendant's objection.