The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In order to resolve a physiological phenomenon, the Defendant is merely using toilets with the consent of the victim’s children, and thus does not constitute residential intrusion.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (a fine of KRW 700,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) The legal interest of the crime of intrusion against residence is established as a result of the peace of the residence of a person against his/her will to harm the peace of the residence, i.e., the control and management of the residence of a person against his/her will, if one of the persons who reside in the residence has a multiple residence holder directly or indirectly due to the peace of the residence that he/she can enjoy, and the consent of the other resident is contrary to the intention of the other resident.

(2) On April 27, 2007, the court below duly adopted and examined the following circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do8967, Apr. 27, 2007). (2) The victim stated in an investigative agency that “I would like to open a door at the time when the defendant was frighted to open the door, and how I would have to request the opening of the door. I would like to enter the toilet while the defendant was frightening the toilet, I would like to fright the house to the other people.” (Evidence No. 8 of the evidence record) ② The defendant stated in the investigative agency that “I would like to look inside the door in the door, and inform other members of the collection status of the situation" (Evidence No. 29 of the evidence record). The victim did not actually know the situation of the victim’s house on the same day when the victim did not actually visit the house.