Although it could sufficiently recognize the Defendants’ crime of intrusion upon their residence, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and thereby acquitted the Defendants.

2. According to the records of this case, the following facts can be acknowledged, including the circumstances stated in the court below:

In other words, even before the victim operated the parking lot in the site of this case, Defendant A had claimed a lien on the building that was interrupted on the site of this case and used the container of this case as the site management office.

The construction contractor J also confirmed that the victim was the owner of the instant container, and there were many goods of Defendant A in the instant container, and for a long time, Defendant A and the victim had access to and used the instant container with their keys.

Defendant

B has been in possession and control of keys by exercising the right of retention and delegated the management of the container of this case by Defendant A.

On the day of the charge, the Defendants asserted that they entered to clean the instant container.

Before the example, the container in the case where the Defendants was found guilty of the non-compliance with the eviction order is a separate container used by the injured party as the parking lot management office on the site of this case.

In light of the above facts, in the situation where there is a dispute over the right to own and use the instant container as listed in the judgment of the court below, Defendant A has been jointly occupied and managed with the victim, and Defendant B has managed the instant container as an assistant to the possession of Defendant A.

It is sufficient to see that there is sufficient room to see the Defendants, and at least the Defendants have such management authority.

in trust circumstances.