The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding or misunderstanding of the legal principles (confiscing part of a structure) caused the Defendant to frequently close the construction site.

Considering the fact that the victim D, E, and F containers are clearly stated only that there is no person who has been transferred to the front of the building of this case, the fact that the defendant moved containers to the front of the building of this case can be recognized as the fact that the defendant moved containers to the front of the building of this case as stated in the facts charged. Even if the location where the defendant moved containers is not inside the building, it constitutes a construction site close to the entrance of the building, and it constitutes a summary of the building of this case.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles that found the defendant not guilty of this part of the charges.

B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (1,00,000 won) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On June 9, 2015, around 11:55, the summary of the official residence room was occupied and managed by the victim D (Woo, 50 years old). The Defendant, at the construction site in Yangsan City, entered the front of the entrance of the building located within the construction site in question by using the cres without the head of the construction site and the body. After having intruded the container stuff at the entrance of the building located within the construction site, the Defendant installed it at the entrance of the building and intruded the victim’s structure.

2) The lower court’s statements made D, E, and F (the summary of common statements made by the Defendant was not directly viewed to move container stuffs to the construction site, but in light of the circumstances at the time, the Defendant’s intrusion into the site and presumed to have installed a container stuff at the entrance of the building in light of the circumstances at the time) with documentary evidence consistent with this part of the facts charged, but the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the Defendant’s electric power (the prior lien) are as follows.