All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower court (2.5 million won) is too unreasonable.

B. The defendant's entry and departure constitutes a summary of the victim's residence where the boundary between the outside and the outside is clearly revealed.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant not guilty on the charge of intrusion of residence among the facts charged against the defendant, and erred by misapprehending the facts and the legal principles.

2. Determination

A. In light of the legal principles and circumstances as to the crime of intrusion upon residence, the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, and in particular, the following circumstances acknowledged based on the result of on-site inspection as follows, it is difficult to view the Defendant’s access to the land as the object of the crime of intrusion upon residence.

(1) G is packed in front of the residence of C, while the part with which the defendant gains access is not sealed.

However, it is difficult to see that the land between the Defendant’s entry into and exit from the part where the Defendant entered, that is, the building constituting the said residence (with no knowledge, love, warehouse building) is a somewhat high package, and it is difficult to see that it is the summary from the unsealed part to the unsealed part.

② Although the entrance of the C’s residence is carrying out a toilet building, considering the management status, people living in the said residence seem to have not been used currently.

③ It is not an object of a crime of intrusion against a residence, but an object of a crime of intrusion against a residence of C, and the residence of C is likely to be the relation located on a slope, and it is difficult to reveal the circumstances that the entry of the outside person is restricted, or that only for the purpose of having access to the residence of C, because it appears that there is a prospect for one side of the relation located on a slope.

Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.

B. Even if the Defendant’s judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant considered the circumstances favorable on the grounds of appeal, the lower court has determined the sentencing.