A. Since the Defendant was only loaded with a portable line and a exhaustr door to the common part of the instant building, there was no fact that the utility of compulsory execution was impaired, and there was no perception that such an act was unlawful.

B. The sentence (one million won of fine) imposed by the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. The crime of infringement on the validity of compulsory execution of real estate under Article 140-2 of the Criminal Act, which judged the misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, shall be established by infringing on the real estate which has been clarified or delivered by compulsory execution, or by other methods

The term "other methods" refers to all acts of interference with the means or methods that may undermine the utility of compulsory execution, and the term "an act of impairing the utility of compulsory execution" refers to any acts of infringing upon the right holder's use of, benefit from, or exercise of rights on, the real estate already named or delivered by compulsory execution.

(2) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court on January 23, 2014 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do38, Jan. 23, 2014). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, E is the owner of a part of the instant building, and as the owner of a part of the building of this case, E filed a lawsuit against the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant occupied a part of the section of the section of the first floor of the building of this case without title, and obtained a final and conclusive judgment in favor of the Defendant. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 25177, Apr. 15, 2014; Presidential Decree No. 20130, Apr. 14, 2014; Presidential Decree No. 20130, Mar. 23, 2014; Presidential Decree No. 20100, Apr. 2

Therefore,

1. Making an illegal store in a corridor;

2. Stockpiling articles which may obstruct the passage of the corridor.