The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, misunderstanding of the legal principles and misunderstanding of the victim D’s residence intrusion was a visit to his relative house, and thus, it constitutes a legitimate act that does not violate social rules.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one hundred months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The "act that does not violate the social rules" under Article 20 of the Criminal Code refers to an act that can be accepted in light of the overall spirit of legal order or the social ethics or social norms behind it. Whether certain act is justified as an act that does not violate the social norms and thus, should be judged individually by rationally and reasonably under specific circumstances. Thus, in order to recognize such a legitimate act, the following requirements should be met: first, the motive or justification of the act; second, the reasonableness of the means or method; third, the balance between the interests and the interests of infringement; fourth, the balance between the interests of protection and the interests of infringement; fifth, the victim and the defendant did not have any other means or method other than the act (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do300, Sept. 26, 2003). The victim was found to have failed by the victim and the defendant, who was in a village of the victim, and the defendant did not have been able to lawfully in the process of the investigation by the victim or the defendant; second, the victim was found to have no other means or method.

In full view of the fact that the defendant made a statement and recognized that the defendant himself is not good for the victim, it shall be taken into account.