A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles do not constitute an intrusion because the Defendant entered the instant commercial building within the scope of prior consent of the victim.

B. The lower court’s sentencing (fine 500,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) Determination of the misapprehension of the legal principle as to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal principle

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Do11322, May 8, 2008; 87Do1760, Nov. 10, 1987). (2) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the following facts are acknowledged.

① On August 20, 2012, the Defendant: (a) concluded a sales contract with respect to the F apartment store underground 106 (hereinafter “instant commercial building”) owned by the Defendant on the pretext of accord and satisfaction with respect to the debt KRW 50 million to E; (b) issued documents necessary for the transfer of registration to G.

② G was placed in the commercial building of this case without completing the procedure for ownership transfer registration in accordance with the registration-related documents delivered by the Defendant, and G was requesting a real estate broker to rent to a third party.

③ On October 10, 2013, the Defendant left the instant shopping mall to lease the instant shopping mall to H et al., thereby damaging the key locker, thereby entering the said shopping mall, and around that time H et al. occupied the said shopping mall.