Defendant A is * the head of the Daejeon District Office, L L * the head of the Daejeon District Office, * the member of the Trade Union affiliated with * the member of the Trade Union.

Defendant A and L, from around 00 to around 16:0 on September 16, 2013, held a meeting to call “construction of a public parking lot for the parking of cargo vehicles” with approximately 30 persons, including the members of the Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Daejeon National Assembly: 100, Seo-gu, Daejeon National Assembly for about one hour: ** in the process of the meeting, for the reason that Defendant A and L did not go to the City Mayor, on the ground that he did not go to the meeting, he did not go to the City.

At around 18:00 on the same day, the Defendant and L occupied approximately nine-hours per hour for the said nine-storys, such as entering the 9th floor of the building through elevators, disregarding the restraint of the security guards entering the office building through Daejeon Viewing their entrance and leaving the 9th floor through elevators, making them sit on the 9th floor of the building, leaving with other participants to work together with other participants, or raising relief.

As a result, the Defendant infringed upon the Daejeon Viewers, which is a building against the will of the Daejeon Viewing Manager.

2. Determination

In the event that the entry of a building, such as a government office, for which the entry of an ordinary person is permitted, is obviously a crime purpose entry, the entry should be limited. As a result, if the entrance is widely recognized as a result of the entry against the will of the manager, it would result in excessive restriction on the right of freedom guaranteed by the Constitution and the legal stability of the people.

The evidence duly adopted and examined by this court (except evidence unexploitable) is as follows: ① the Defendant and the union members of the labor union (hereinafter the Defendant and the union members of the labor union) were convened in advance and on September 16, 2013: 00: around 16:00 to around 17:0, about 10, up to 10, the number of the members of the labor union were going to go to the viewing through an open door for the Daejeon Viewing City, Daejeon Viewing to hold a market meeting; but the Defendant and the police officers of the labor union were to go to the 9th floor because the elevator did not go to the 10th floor; ② the witness stand to the 9th floor, ② the witness stand to the 9th floor;* the Defendant and the police officers of the labor union during the above 17th floor.

(3) Viewing the fact that it is not explicitly required to leave or order dissolution, or to leave, and it is also stated that there is no such demand; and

Among the public and civil petitioners are open at all times, and if they are not for the purpose of committing a crime, anyone can freely view the public office (a witness * who works in the general viewing department and is in charge of the management of facilities).

On the 10th floor, it is predicted that the elevator does not open and the door door of the stairs is not opened.

However, in light of the fact that it was stated that it was not particularly prohibited from being placed on other floors, no intention was intended to prevent Defendant from entering the remaining floor except the 10th floor.

(4) The Defendant seems to continuously demand to create a parking lot for cargo vehicles.

Now, prior to the date and time of this case, the official door sent to the official door demanding an interview with the large exhibition hall.

In light of the fact that the civil petitioners wishing to hold a meeting with the market and hold a promise by visiting the library located on the 10th floor during the business hours and demanding an interview, and that it would be possible to write down the promise; 6. Although the defendant was holding in the 9th floor, it seems that the time was not long, there is no evidence to conclude that the defendant had an intention to hold a meeting within the audience prior to entering the audience, 7. The defendant's conduct is voluntarily dissolved before the 18th hour prior to the completion of the business, and 8. There was no physical conflict in the process, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone cannot be deemed to have proved the facts charged of this case, and there is no evidence to prove otherwise (in addition, the facts charged are not proven to have been entered the audience at the 18th hour prior to the expiration of the business period.

However, according to the statements of the witnesses, the time of work after entering the work hours.

The removal seems to have been made before the termination of the contract.

Ultimately, the facts charged in the instant case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime and thus, acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act