The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (five million won in penalty) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination ex officio as to the intrusion of a structure against the victim D

A. The summary of the facts charged is as follows: (a) the Defendant was a person who resides in the first floor of the building owned by the victim of the commercial building located in Ansan-gu, Ansan-gu; (b) at around 2010, the said building owner E, etc. requested management, such as cleaning of the first floor and the second floor of the building; and (c) the Defendant jointly managed the said toilet with G, the main store of “F” located in the first floor of the commercial building.

On June 6, 2017, around 02:50, the Defendant, on the foregoing grounds, had the key to the above toilet, and string it into the string column in the above toilet, and string the shape of female customers in commercial buildings with a view to satisfying the Defendant’s sexual desire.

The Defendant confirmed the presence of female customers within the “F” point, and invadedd the above public toilet with a view to meeting sexual humiliation against the will of the joint manager G, at the same time going beyond the management scope, such as a hole h (30 years old), which is a hole attached to the wall, coming back by the above main guest h (the above main guest h, 30 years old) from the front bridge, and h (the above main guest h, h) with a hole attached to the wall, for the purpose of stealing the female guest from the toilet.

Accordingly, the defendant invadedd the victim's building managed by G.

B. Legal interests in the protection of the crime of intrusion on a structure are de facto peace and peace that can enjoy by a person who occupies and manages a structure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do4164, Jul. 28, 2011). According to the record, it can be recognized that the victim is the owner of a commercial building where the toilet of this case is located, and at the time, the victim occupied or managed the toilet of this case.