A. The Defendant in violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act practically operated the “G” in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E’s underground floor, the first and second floors (hereinafter “instant place”). Since the victim F, the head of the headquarters of the business, arbitrarily changed the victim F to G (hereinafter “instant company”) established the lessee under the lease contract and illegally occupied the instant place, the Defendant’s act entering the instant place cannot be deemed as infringing on another’s residence.

B. The Defendant did not exercise his authority at the time of entering the place of this case, and the person entering the place of this case together with the Defendant was a small number of people who did not reach the degree of exercising the power of interference with business, and the Defendant’s act of taking safety measures which cannot be inevitably taken in the situation of driving away from the Defendant’s office, and which does not go against the social rules, but was guilty of the above facts charged. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the

C. The documents brought by the Defendant at the place of this case, without any particular value, cannot be deemed as the ownership of the victim F or H because they can be easily issued by the public agency, such as the copy of the register, and cannot be deemed as the ownership of the victim F or H. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine that found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The first crime of intrusion upon residence is the legal interest protected by the law as to the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint residence) and obstruction of business. Thus, the issue of whether a resident or a manager has the right to reside in or manage a structure is a crime.