A. On September 23, 2016, around 07:50 on September 23, 2016, the Defendant: (a) went to the “E-type hall (hereinafter “E-type hall”); (b) the Defendant, despite being aware of the fact that access by others was extremely limited on the grounds of equal infection, went to the said hall by using a cresh that he neglected surveillance.

Accordingly, the defendant invadedd on the building managed by the damaged person.

B. The Defendant, at the above date, time and place, found F, who visited the instant aquaculture and visited to purchase E, taken the vehicle number, active air tights, etc. of the freight truck on which F was on board, and fell from the prohibition of carrying out of the new rain.

It is very difficult to sell these days after being brought to the people.

If you want to do so, you will return to the seller and talk to the seller.

“After cutting off the scrap, F had F return to the match without purchasing E.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the operation of the victim's aquaculture and the sales of fishery products by force.

2. Determination

A. (1) The point of intrusion on a structure includes a summary of the building attached thereto, other than the building, which is the object of the crime of intrusion on a residence, but the summary must be clearly revealed in an objective manner that the building is adjacent to the building, which is installed by a fence, etc., to be provided for the use of the building, and that the building is not accessible to the outside.

Therefore, even if land annexed to a building contributed to the use of the building, it is objectively clear that the entry of the outside person is generally restricted if the land is not partitioned or controlled by human resources or physical facilities, and the boundary can be exceeded easily by the walking.

It is difficult to see it, barring special circumstances, it does not belong to the object of the crime of intrusion upon residence (Supreme Court Decision April 29, 2010).