Since the building of this case was owned and managed by the defendant as the owner of the defendant and was not managed by E, the husband of the victim D and his husband, the act of entering the building does not constitute the crime of intrusion upon the building.

Since the crime of entering a building in the market is in de facto possession of the building, if the victim was in possession of the building, it does not interfere with the establishment of the crime of entering a residence even if the building was owned by the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do9873, Feb. 28, 2008). In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and duly examined by the court below, the victims at the time of the instant case were in possession of the building in accordance with the agreement with the defendant, and the defendant was in possession of the building in the instant case with F, the husband, without the consent of the victims, and the defendant was in intrusion with the family building in the instant case. Thus, the above argument by the

(1) On January 26, 1999, the Defendant acquired a land C and a multi-family house with three floors above such land and its ground, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in his/her name.

② Around 1999, the Defendant extended the 123.2 square meters of a 4-story house (501, No. 501, and No. 1 of the instant building) on the said multi-family house, and extended the 92.94 square meters of a 5-story house again around 2006.

③ On November 9, 2007, E leased part of three floors (No. 401) of the above multi-family house from the Defendant to 90 million won for lease deposit.

④ Around July 16, 2010, some lessees of the above multi-family houses held that KRW 42,257,500, such as the refund claim of lease deposit, etc. shall be the claimed amount, and the procedures for compulsory auction with respect to the above multi-family houses were carried out by the Suwon District Court for the purpose of requesting the amount. The Defendant lent KRW 48 million to E on August 16, 201 and used it as expenses incurred in repayment of the obligation to K and withdrawal of the above request for auction.

5. The defendant is against E.