A. The D Site and building site and building (E, F, G, H, I, K, K, L, M, N, andO land (hereinafter “instant real estate”) located in the name of the Defendant C are real estate purchased by the Defendant under the name of the Defendant and managed directly by the Defendant under the name of C, and since the victims possessed or managed the instant real estate by delivery, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of all the charges of this case as to each of the facts charged of this case, on the ground that it cannot be established, since there was no fact that the victims occupied or managed the instant real estate under the name of C. Thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts that affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of all the charges of this case, misunderstanding the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, even though the Defendant did not know the lease agreement between C and the victims, since it was merely installed with locks and access to the real estate owned by the Defendant, and there was no interference with the exercise of rights

(c)

The Defendant, as a legitimate exercise of rights to defend the victims from the illegal locking of the instant real estate owned by the Defendant, removed locks installed by the victims and locked again, and the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of all the charges of this case, even if the Defendant’s act is justified as a legitimate act, and thus, it erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the grounds for the dismissal of illegality, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. Relevant legal principles 1) Since the crime of intrusion upon residence is a de facto legal interest to protect the peace of residence, the issue of whether a resident or a manager has the right to reside or manage in a structure does not depend on the establishment of the crime, and even if a person who has no right to possess is possessed, the peace of residence should be protected. Thus, the right holder is the exercise of his/her right.