A. Fact-misunderstanding and legal principles 1) In order to find out the service employees who illegally occupy the Defendant’s building, there is a fact that there is no intention to commit the crime of intrusion on a structure. However, the Defendant did not have the intention to commit the crime of infringing on a structure since he heard that the service employees will open the building properly in the process and carried out the work together with the subcontractor companies, and the door installers among the subcontractor employees was closed.

2) The illegality of the Defendant’s entry into the instant building in order to recover from the occupied possession from the damaged party is eliminated as a legitimate defense or a legitimate act.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (the sentence of two years of suspended execution in August, and the community service order of 80 hours) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion that there was no intention to commit the crime of intrusion on a structure, the lower court would find out the Defendant, at the time, to the police officers of the Yananananannam Police Station at the time.

The notice of the order is to inform the service employees of the order, and the degree of 20 personnel of the victim's side service employees to enter the building of this case, and find out the building of this case out of the 20 members of the victim's side service staff, and some service employees who closed the entrance door up to the second floor of the building did not produce the entrance, and thereafter, between August 17, 2014 and August 25, 2014, two employees of the victim's side service will leave the building of this case in lieu of service costs.

“Around August 26, 2014, in light of the Defendant’s statement (in the investigation record No. 500, 501 pages) and witness F and H’s legal statements made at an investigative agency that all of the employees of the above service were removed and recovered from the possession of the building of this case, there was no intention to intrude the building of this case upon receiving a report that the Defendant would enter the building of this case without any problem, following consultation with the victim’s service employees.