A. Erroring facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (1) If a structure allowed by the general public enters the same place against the explicit or presumed intention of the manager, a structure intrusion is established.

However, in light of the fact that the Defendants entered the instant parking lot in order to prevent the victim from exercising his rights, and there was a victim H and vagabonds in the process, the Defendants can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendants infringed on the instant parking lot against the victim’s will.

As such, the court below erred by misunderstanding the legal principles on the crime of intrusion upon residence.

(2) As to interference with business, even if there was no physical conflict between the Defendants and the victim at the time of the instant case with respect to interference with business, the act of vehicle taking advantage of the victim itself constitutes an act which may cause confusion about the victim’s freedom

However, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the crime of interference with business since the court below acquitted this part of the facts charged.

B. In a case where the portion of acquittal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is reversed and the sentence corresponding thereto is required.

2. Determination

A. (1) As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, even if a structure allowed entry by the general public against the explicit or presumed intention of the manager, the crime of intrusion is established. However, in the crime of intrusion upon residence, the "building", which is the object of the crime of intrusion, includes not only the building itself, but also the above summary attached to it, in light of the fact that the crime of intrusion upon residence actually takes into account the benefit and protection of the peace of residence.