The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (definite or misunderstanding of legal principles) the Defendant resided in a multi-family housing (multi-family loan) such as the victim C (hereinafter “victim”), and the victim examined or criticized the Defendant’s husband in the broadband or the Kakao Kakao Stockholm group hosting consisting of the occupants of the said multi-family housing.

On December 2, 2018, the Defendant: (a) around 17:25, 2018, around 17:25, the Defendant: (b) divided labels into the victim’s front door; and (c) the victim’s son D (hereinafter “victim’s son”) opened the front door; (d) the Defendant asked the victim of the son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s gate

After that, the defendant cannot open the above door and enter the door.

Although the Defendant did not have a view to entering the victim’s front door, the lower court erred by recognizing that the Defendant opened the front door and told the victim to open the front door without any evidence, and that the Defendant invadedd the victim’s residence by opening the front door and opening the front door of the victim’s residence.

Furthermore, in the situation where the defendant found the victim in order to face with face-to-face, there was no danger of intimidation, assault, etc., and the defendant's act of exercising the defendant's right is ultimately an act of checking the facts related to defamation against the defendant and preventing recurrence of the facts and aiming at getting the defendant's awareness that the defendant was not able

The defendant's such a series of acts constitute acts that do not violate social rules as stipulated in Article 20 of the Criminal Act.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous.