The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts (influence of residence) is that the defendant entered the apartment of this case to return the victim's things, and there was no intention of entering the residence.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years of imprisonment, etc.) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Since the crime of intrusion upon residence is the protected legal interest in the determination of the mistake of facts, the crime of intrusion upon residence is established if the act of entering the residence was committed in spite of the resident’s explicit or presumed intent, and if the act of entering the residence was committed in spite of the resident’s explicit or presumed intent, unless there are special circumstances, it shall be deemed that the method of intrusion itself goes against the resident’s will, barring special circumstances.

(2) On August 1, 2019, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do2595, Aug. 23, 2007). The defendant threatened the victim and his family members with the victim with the sexual intercourse video on several occasions, and thereby, the victim was refusing to communicate with the defendant after the victim changed the cell phone number and the joint entrance door password of the apartment of this case. ② The defendant was under the police investigation of the above case, and was instructed by the investigative agency that the victim or his family members should not contact or visit the victim. ③ Nevertheless, the defendant took advantage of the co-entry password of the apartment of this case and entered into the building, and included the items possessed by the victim and the letter prepared by the defendant in front of the front door of the victim, and the defendant took the same way as the victim's entrance and exit for two hours thereafter.