The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

However, for a period of four years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In relation to the misapprehension of the legal principle, the Defendant’s act of opening a window along the way at night and taking the inside of the multi-use room used as a warehouse cannot be deemed to have practically reached the extent of undermining the peace of residence. Thus, the Defendant’s attempted crime of intrusion upon residence is committed.

The judgment of the court below which recognized the basis of the crime of intrusion upon residence is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (two years and six months of imprisonment, 40 hours of completion of sexual assault treatment programs, and 5 years of employment restrictions on children and juveniles-related institutions and welfare facilities for the disabled) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the misapprehension of legal principles

A. In a case where a specific act was commenced to commit a crime of intrusion by the relevant legal doctrine, the commission of a crime of intrusion by residence should be deemed to have been initiated. In a case where a part of the body went into a residence but it does not actually reach the degree of harm to the peace of residence, the crime of intrusion by residence is deemed to have been attempted (see Supreme Court Decision 94Do2561, Sept. 15, 1995). The crime of intrusion by residence is deemed to have satisfied the elements of crime if the crime of intrusion by residence was committed to the extent that it may harm the peace of the residence which a resident can enjoy as the protected legal interest of the peace of the dwelling. In the crime of intrusion by residence, the term “residential” does not merely refer to the house itself, but includes the above summary.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Do1092 Decided April 24, 2001, and Supreme Court Decision 2009Do3452 Decided August 20, 2009, etc.) B.

Judgment

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence adopted and examined by the court below, it is reasonable to view that the defendant's act of opening a multi-use window in the victim's house and examining the inside of the face by keeping the victim's house tightly and harming the peace of the victim's residence constitutes the constituent part of the crime

The judgment of the court below is just and erroneous.