2. Since the crime of entering a board building is established when the victim enters a building against the victim's will, if the victim's permission was obtained, such act does not constitute the element of the crime of entering a building as so-called "sea".

Unlike “the consent of the victim,” which is the reason for the exclusion of illegality, such a “competence” is unreasonable even if the expression of intent is made by deception or mistake.

The Defendants recognize the facts listed on the rooftop of a building as stated in the facts charged, and according to the witness F’s legal statement, investigation report (the content of the direction of inspection)’s statement, etc., the instant rooftop was open to a normal place. On the day of the instant case, the instant building had a rooftop entrance door locked upon the police’s request on the day of the instant case, but the above rooftop manager F opened a rooftop entrance to the key and opened on the rooftop, and the Defendants were also aware of the facts listed on the rooftop with the aforementioned F’s implied permission.

According to this, the Defendants did not appear to have entered the above rooftop against their will because they had the understanding of the manager of the rooftop of the instant building.

The purpose of the defendants' rooftop entry was not to avoid tobacco, but to carry a flag card and to hold relief out.

In other words, the understanding of the manager F was by deception or mistake.

Even if the F’s understanding is valid, and as long as there is a realistic understanding of F, it is not determined based on the assumptive or presumed intention that F would have not been permitted if it was the above entry purpose.

In addition, it shall be.