The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. In light of all circumstances such as the fact that the defendant was living in the past victims' residence (hereinafter "the instant residence"), possession of the defendant's belongings in the instant residence, and the defendant's resident registration in the instant residence, the defendant cannot be deemed to have intruded into the instant residence, and the defendant did not have any intention to intrude into the residence of this case.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below found the defendant guilty of the crime of intrusion by considering that the defendant intentionally invaded the residence of this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The offense of intrusion upon residence is classified as the protected legal interest of the crime of intrusion upon residence. Whether the resident or manager has the right to reside in or manage the building, etc. does not depend on the establishment of the crime, and even if the resident or manager is permitted to enter the building, if the act of entering the residence is committed against the explicit or presumed intention of the resident or manager, then the crime of intrusion upon residence is established if the act of entering the residence is committed against the explicit or presumed intention of the resident

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Do2595 Decided August 23, 2007, etc.). We examine the instant case in light of the aforementioned legal principles.

According to the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, i.e., the victim C’s statement at the investigative agency of the victim C, the victim gave several warnings to the Defendant on August 7, 2017, which is the day of the instant case, to the effect that the Defendant entered the instant residence on August 7, 2017, and (2) Nevertheless, the Defendant opened a door to the victim C for TV installation engineer and entered the instant residence without the consent of the victim C, and (3) the Defendant was living together with the victim B, etc., who is the same victim at the time of the instant residence.