The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The Defendant, misunderstanding the substance of the grounds for appeal and misunderstanding the legal doctrine, did not enter the victim’s residence by forcing the gate to be opened, and the victim’s gate does not constitute the above summary included in “residential” on the road along which the vehicle attends.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case on a different premise is erroneous and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

The sentencing of the court below's improper sentencing (the sentencing of 300,000 won) is too unreasonable.

The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of misunderstanding of the facts as to the grounds for appeal and misapprehension of the legal principles: (i) although the victim made a somewhat exaggeration about the defendant's specific behavior in the court of the court below, the victim has consistently stated the fact that the defendant entered the main gate of the dwelling without the victim's consent, and (ii) E, a police officer who was dispatched to the dwelling of this case upon receiving the report, was in the court of the court of the court below after opening the main gate of the dwelling of this case and upon the expiration of the last math, he was in the front gate and the present gate at the time of his arrival.

In full view of the fact that this is consistent with the statements of the victim, it is recognized that the defendant entered the house of the victim as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the court below and opened the door door, and the defendant does not merely refer to the house itself in the crime of intrusion into a house, but includes the above summary such as the fixed number of persons (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Do1092, Apr. 24, 2001, etc.). The above Ma party that entered the defendant constitutes the above summary, which is the object of the crime of intrusion into a house.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is just, and there is a defendant.