A. Fact-finding: The court below erred in finding the Defendant guilty of the charges of this case by misunderstanding the fact, although the claim group, such as the victim H, etc. (hereinafter referred to as the “claim group”) in the judgment of the court below, continued to possess the F apartment 702 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant apartment”) in Seoul Gwangjin-gu, Seoul, and thus, did not infringe the right of retention of the victims.

B. Unreasonable sentencing: The sentence of the lower court (a fine of five million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of misunderstanding of facts is based on the legal interest protected by the law as to the de facto peace of a structure that manages a structure. Thus, whether the manager has a legal legitimate authority to manage the structure does not depend on the establishment of the crime, and even if it is illegal possession under a private law without a legitimate authority, its actual peace and peace should be protected. In such a case, even if a right holder is a person under a private law, if he intrudes into the structure without due procedure against the will of the manager, the crime of intrusion upon the structure should be established (see Supreme Court Decisions 82Do1363, Mar. 8, 1983; 2006Do4875, Sept. 28, 2006). Thus, the "other person" subject to protection in the exercise of right does not necessarily mean only the right to possess the period of possession, but it does not necessarily mean the right to possess, and it is clear whether the right exists after the commencement of the possession or the right to possess it after the commencement of the procedure of concurrent performance.