A. In light of the legal principles, it is illegal for public officials belonging to the Geumsan Military Office to refuse the disclosure of information of the accused, and the demand for the withdrawal of the accused also does not constitute a legitimate demand for eviction, and thus, the defendant's act of failing to comply with such demand does not constitute a refusal to leave, or the illegality is dismissed

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (an amount of KRW 700,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Judgment 1 on the argument of misunderstanding the legal principles as to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles, since the manager can restrict access as necessary even if the lawsuit is generally open, the failure to leave the building is detrimental to the peace of the de facto structure and constitutes a crime of refusing to leave (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do12609, Mar. 11, 2010). 2) In light of such legal principles, the defendant alleged that it is improper to demand the defendant to leave the above disposition because the disposition of refusing the disclosure of information by the Geumsan Military Office is illegal. However, although the defendant failed to comply with the procedure of requesting information disclosure under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, even if the above disposition of refusing to leave the building was illegal, it is not allowed to exercise the power by the method of refusing to leave the building without following lawful procedures such as administrative litigation, and ③ the defendant's act of refusing to leave the building from the point of view of the manager's direct right to demand the defendant's withdrawal from the police after leaving the building was not directly related to the time.