The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not have any perception and intention of intrusion upon residence, and did not damage the property.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal, the record reveals that the Defendant was sentenced on July 16, 2015 by imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Toxic Chemicals Control Act (hesting hallucinogenic substances) and on October 3, 2015 at the Seoul Central District Court, and confirmed that the judgment became final and conclusive on October 3, 2015. The crime for which the judgment became final and conclusive and the crime of the lower judgment are concurrent crimes in the relationship of a group after Article 37 of the Criminal Act and the crime of the lower judgment are determined by taking into account equity with the case where the judgment is rendered at the same time in accordance with Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the lower judgment was unable

The defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, despite the above reasons for reversal of authority.

B. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant, along with 136 co-offenders, was aware that the Defendant was unlawfully invaded upon the funeral hall in light of the following: (a) around February 20, 2015; (b) around M, N around M, and the number of five persons inside the building by entering the glass door of the funeral hall in which liability would be imposed upon criminal punishment, such as punishment; and (c) upon receiving instructions from the above co-offenders, five persons inside the building; and (d) upon receiving instructions from the above co-offenders, entered the funeral hall in the judgment of the lower court; and (e) the background, method, and time, etc. of the entry of the funeral hall of the Defendant, etc.

I seem to appear.

In addition, according to the above evidence, when the defendant intrudes into the funeral hall under the direction of M, etc., Quas the glass entrance, etc. of the funeral funeral hall, and RRs the convenience entrance of the first floor above the underground level is recognized.