The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles: (a) When the dynamics of the victim were forced to stop the operation of the store without permission and dispose of the bread that had already been created due to the lack of bread, the victim was able to have the breath before the victim’s house presumed to reside; (b) the victim was informed of the fact of the visit in advance to the victim and went through the official announcement that was not corrected; and (c) there was no intention of entering the place of residence.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (three million won of a fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of the misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles regarding the crime of housing intrusion includes not merely a house itself, but also the above summary such as the fixed number of houses. Therefore, since the elevator used for public use in a multi-household house, multi-household house, apartment house, etc., and stairs and corridor are essential parts of each household or household used as a residence, which are planned to monitor and manage in daily life by the residents, and there is a need to protect the peace of de facto residence, it constitutes an elevator inside a multi-household house, multi-household house, apartment house, etc., and common stairs and corridor constitute a "human house," which is the object of the crime of housing intrusion, barring special circumstances. Intrusion against the explicit intention of residents and implied intent of the above place constitutes a crime of housing intrusion (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do435, Sept. 10, 2009).