The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since the defendant of mistake of facts enters the victim's residence with the consent of the victim, the crime of intrusion of residence is not established.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) A determination on the assertion of mistake of the facts reveals that the crime of intrusion upon residence does not simply refer to the house itself, but includes the above summary, such as the fixed number of houses. Therefore, in light of the above legal principles, the act of intrusion against the residents’ explicit and implied intent in the above place constitutes a crime of intrusion upon residence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do4335, Sept. 10, 2009), since the elevator, stairs and corridor are essential parts of each household or household which are used as a residence, and the residents are expected to monitor and manage daily life and there is a need to protect the peace of de facto residence. Thus, in light of the above legal principles, it is sufficiently recognized that the court below lawfully adopted the facts charged by taking into account the following facts as a whole:

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake is not accepted.

① Although the Defendant and the victim were living together with others due to the past personal relations, they were hedging around July 2017.

On July 2017, the Defendant alleged that there was no hedging around July 2017. However, the Defendant and the victim filed a complaint against each other from July 2017 on several occasions.