The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The fact that the Defendant, on December 19, 201, caused the human father to make a payment of household tools located in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 401 (hereinafter “instant studio”). However, the aforementioned studio was all the goods owned by the Defendant, and D was in the state of directors in the instant studio around October 201, and therefore, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have invaded upon D’s residence. Thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

The punishment of a fine of 300,000 won imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

Judgment

In the case of entering the residence of another person against the intention of the resident in determining the misunderstanding of facts, the crime of intrusion of residence is established. At this time, the resident's intention can be presumed to include not only explicit but also implied cases, and also the resident's objection may be presumed according to the surrounding circumstances.

(1) The crime of intrusion upon residence is established if the act of entering the residence was committed against the explicit or presumed intent of the resident or manager, even though the person permitted access to the ordinary residence due to the relationship with the resident or manager, etc. Furthermore, the crime of intrusion upon residence is established if the act of entering the residence was committed against the explicit or presumed intent of the resident or manager.

(1) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the lower court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do8349, Oct. 13, 201).