A. The Defendant’s act of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles does not constitute intrusion on a structure in light of the place of intrusion or intention, etc., and the victim F and the victim G’s new construction work does not constitute an illegal construction, which is worth protecting under the Criminal Act. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 2,00,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in this part, even in the lower court’s determination of mistake and misapprehension of legal doctrine.

The court below rejected the defendant's assertion, and recognized the defendant's crime of intrusion on the structure and crime of interference with business with business with respect to the defendant's argument in detail in the part of "the judgment on the defendant's and his defense counsel's assertion" with three or less

In addition, in full view of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is just and acceptable, and it does not err by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, we cannot accept the defendant's assertion of mistake and misapprehension of legal principles.

① Since the legal interest protected by the law is the de facto peace of a structure under which a building is managed, whether the manager has a legitimate authority to manage the structure does not depend on the establishment of a crime. Even if an illegal possession under private law without a legitimate authority is deemed to be under his/her possession unless he/she is relieved of such possession through lawful procedures, even in such cases, the de facto peace therein.