From September 21, 2015 to October 12, 2015, the Defendant intruded into the interior of the shopping mall D 1111, which is a structure managed by the victim, without permission.

2. Determination

A. According to the records, the fact that the injured party C was awarded a successful bid for the shopping mall D 111 in the name of E (hereinafter “instant shopping mall”) in the real estate auction procedure on September 18, 2015, and the Defendant, who is an employee of App&A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “ApPA”), entered the instant shopping mall from September 21, 2015 to October 12, 2015, is recognized.

B. However, Article 319(1) of the Criminal Act punishs “a person who intrudes upon a human habitation, managed building, structure, ship, aircraft, or occupied room.” Thus, in order for the Defendant to constitute a crime of intrusion into a structure under Article 319(1) of the Criminal Act, the mere fact that the instant commercial building was in a state of “victim’s management” should be recognized.

According to the records, (1) prior to September 18, 2015, A Business F&A occupied and managed the instant commercial building in the state of locking the entrance by having the Defendant, who is his employee, as an assistant in possession, set up the air conditioning and air conditioning apparatus, etc. inside the instant commercial building, and (2) the victim acquired ownership after being awarded a successful bid for the instant commercial building on September 18, 2015, and did not receive the instant commercial building through a request for an order for delivery of real estate or a lawsuit for delivery of real estate, etc., on or around September 21, 2015, he/she opened the locks of the entrance of the instant commercial building and confirmed the inside of the entrance of the road, and then opened the locks.