2. The Defendant asserted that the Defendant’s defense room 102, at the time of the instant case, at the time when the sound slicked on the day of the instant case, was 102, there was a dispute about improving the speech and behavior of C, E, etc. while the door was opened, and the Defendant merely marks the face and photographs to verify whether E occupied the said 102 as a manager of the said commercial building and whether the entrance was illegally remodeled. Thus, the Defendant asserted that it does not constitute a intrusion upon residence or that it is not illegal as a legitimate act due to his/her duties.

3. Determination

A. According to the statement in investigation agency and the court, and the statement in the judgment related to E, C, the chief executive office of D stores, filed a provisional disposition against C, etc. with the Seoul Western District Court 2013Kahap640 on the day of the instant case, was found to have turned on 102 while carrying out patrol around January 7, 2014, and entered the above head office, which was not corrected. The above 102 was a place where D's lien of F Companies, the constructor of D commercial buildings, has been recognized, and C, appointed as the president of the management body, after acquiring the ownership of D's above head office. Accordingly, C filed an application for provisional disposition against C, etc. on the part of F Co., Ltd. with the Seoul Western District Court 2013Kahap640, and the above court issued a decision prohibiting the act of obstructing the exercise of the F's lien against 10 houses including the above 102 head office, and the Defendant reported the above 102 head and 102 of the building on the day of the instant case.