The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case, which did not err by misapprehending the legal principles or adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, although the defendant filed a complaint against D due to damage caused by unauthorized intrusion of D.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the following facts can be acknowledged.

(1) From August 4, 2004, the Defendant did not pay rent for six months during the lease and use of a commercial building owned by J (hereinafter “instant store”) in ASEAN, and the said lease agreement was terminated around August 2010.

Nevertheless, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Defendant against the Defendant claiming for the presentation of building name, etc. on the instant store (Seoul District Court Decision 2010Kadan21296, Daejeon District Court Decision 2010, Jun. 23, 2011, where “the Defendant transferred the instant store to F, etc.” was sentenced to a provisional execution judgment stating that “F, etc. deliver the instant store to F, etc.”

(2) On March 29, 2012, the Defendant appealed against the above judgment (Seoul District Court Decision 201Na10721), and the judgment dismissing the Defendant’s appeal was rendered on March 29, 2012. Accordingly, the lessorF, etc. pursuant to the above judgment, performed compulsory execution against the instant store on April 18, 2012. D attended the said compulsory execution as the obligee’s agent, such as F, etc., and leased the instant store from F, etc. on the other hand, on April 23, 2012.

(3) Around 14:00 on April 26, 2012, the Defendant asserted the ownership of the instant store and claimed the ownership of the instant store, and the instant order for the suspension of construction work is called as a "provisional disposition for the suspension of construction work" on the inside wall of the instant store, and the said inside wall is excavated.