A. 1) Fact-misunderstanding 1) The Defendant committed an intrusion on a structure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 1.1.) with illegal purposes, did not enter a G professional school operated by the injured party, but the above place is a de facto public place where free access by the public is allowed, and thus, the lower court convicted the injured party of the fact, and thus, it erred by misapprehending the facts.

2) The Defendant, by force on February 12, 2015, did not interfere with the business of the G Professional School Administrative Office operated by the injured party, and did not impair the honor of the injured party by pointing out false facts. The lower court found the Defendant guilty on the ground that the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, and thereby erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

3) The Defendant, on February 12, 2015, did not infringe the victim’s reputation by pointing out false facts to the trainees of various unspecified G vocational specialized schools and instructors of JHA, and the lower court found the Defendant guilty on the ground that the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, and thereby erred by misapprehending the facts.

4) The Defendant, on February 17, 2015, issued a written confirmation to I and one female employee of the Administrative Secretary, but this does not constitute a false fact. However, the lower court found the Defendant guilty on the ground that the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact, and thus, erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The lower court’s sentence against an unfair defendant in sentencing (an amount of KRW 4,000,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) A person who has been permitted to enter a structure in a usual manner due to the infringement of a structure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do5686, May 13, 2010). The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the infringement of a structure if the person enters the structure against the explicit or presumed intent of the manager (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do5686, May 13, 2010).