The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the fact that the Defendant was in close contact with the victim and was in close contact with the victim’s house and the victim’s house password was frequently opened at the victim’s house. At the time of the instant case, the Defendant opened the door door by dividing the victim’s house password and did not express any objection to the victim, and thus, the lower court recognized the Defendant’s crime of intrusion of residence against the victim, notwithstanding the absence of any intrusion of the victim’s intention, was erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts.

B. The sentence of an unreasonable sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. According to the records of the judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant acknowledged the point of entering the house of this case in the court of the court below, and the defendant, at the police investigation stage, stated that "the victim opened a door to the victim and opened a door to the victim because the victim was not opened and forced to enter the victim's door," and forced intrusion into the victim's house by force. The fact that the victim was living together with the defendant and went to the victim, and then the defendant was able to recognize the fact that the defendant was able to without permission and threatened the victim's house against the victim's will. In light of such facts and circumstances, at the time, the defendant violated the victim's house against the victim's will.

Therefore, the court below which recognized the defendant's residential intrusion did not err in mistake of facts.

B. The instant crime of this case on the assertion of unfair sentencing is a crime of infringing on the victim’s residence and destroying the victim’s property and threatening the victim’s head, thereby threateninging the victim. The Defendant committed the instant crime of this case on the part of 26 occasions, and the Defendant committed the instant crime of this case on four occasions before the suspended sentence and one time after the suspended sentence of this case.