Even if not, the instant building is not owned by D, so the instant facts charged constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, since it is not owned by D.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendants guilty of all the facts charged in this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The lower court: (a) was sentenced to a fine on July 3, 2014 on the same criminal facts that the Defendants had already invaded on the instant building in around 2012 or around 2014, and the judgment became final and conclusive; (b) the Defendants’ assertion in the lower judgment is identical to the assertion in the previous case; and (c) Defendant B acquired the ownership or lien on the instant building after the final and conclusive judgment.

On the grounds that there is no particular change in circumstances, all of the charges against the Defendants were found guilty.

B. The legal interests of the crime of intrusion upon residence are actually peace such as residence, and thus, it is not important to whom the ownership of the object, such as residence, belongs, and the management column of the structure in the case of the “building managed” as stated in the facts charged in the instant case refers to the management column of the structure, and the person can be assessed to have de facto control and management with human and physical equipment to prevent unauthorized intrusion by other persons.

In light of the above legal principles, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in the circumstances stated in the court below, namely, the victim D was under construction from H on June 10, 2007.