A. Fact-misunderstanding or misunderstanding of legal principles is that the structure of this case is permitted to enter the general public, and thus, there is no crime of intrusion on the structure.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable (300,000 won).

2. Determination

A. According to the judgment of the court below and the evidence adopted by the appellate court as to the assertion of misunderstanding the facts and the legal principles, the defendant's access to a place is a toilet inside the waiting structure used by customers visiting D, the above structure includes a place where fire alarm facilities are installed, and the entrance door includes a sign "disaster prevention room". The sign board is indicated as "Prohibition of Access by Persons Other than Related Persons". Among the above structure, a small wave and a table are installed at the waiting place of drivers among the above structure. In order to use the toilet, the entrance door must pass through the entrance, but the D employees did not strictly control access to the above structure, but only ordinary drivers and D employees used the above structure, the defendant used the above structure and a toilet before this case, and the defendant requested access from E, one of the managers of the above structure.

According to the above facts, since the above structure is not a place where access is permitted to anyone, if access is contrary to the intention of the manager, the crime of intrusion on the structure is established.

Even if the above structure is permitted to enter the general public, if it goes against the manager's will or enters the above structure against the manager's presumed will, the crime of intrusion on the structure is also established (see Supreme Court Decision 95Do2674 delivered on March 28, 197, etc.). In light of the above facts, the defendant's access to the above structure is recognized.