The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant entered the house by entering the victim’s father D, and thus, there is no intention to intrude into the house. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby infringing on the victim’s residence.

The recognition was recognized.

2. Determination

(a) Where a person enters another's residence contrary to the intention of the resident, the crime of intrusion upon the person's residence shall be established;

“Ab.” includes not only explicit cases, but also implied cases, and according to the surrounding circumstances, the opposite intention of the resident can be presumed (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do1256, May 30, 2003). B. According to the above legal principles, according to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the victim’s father D was using shower in the investigative agency, “the wife on the day of the instant case was going to shower by opening the toilet door,” and he was receiving a cigarette while opening the door, and it was confirmed by opening the door door in front of the entrance. Accordingly, the Defendant, who was residing on the next floor, opened the door door and opened the door door.

At the same time, a toilet door was opened at the home and showered, and the Defendant, who had been spanty spanty spanty spanty spanty spanty spanty spanty spanty spanty spanty spanty spanty spanty spande, did not have the Defendant’s dwelling.” The lower court consistently stated that “The Defendant was present

In this statement, the following circumstances acknowledged by the above evidence are as follows: ① The victim, while being divingd, comes to a ward with a large volume; and the defendant, with a panty car, took the panty pipe in front of the toilet and took actions to display a pipe, and made a physical fighting in order to cut down the hack pipe.

statement;