Defendant

All appeals filed by A, B and C and prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. Since Defendants A, B, and C’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles entered the management office to take over the management affairs, Defendants are not only intentional interference and intrusion, but also justifiable acts in light of their purpose and means.

In addition, the victim company rejected the transfer system even though it does not have the right to manage the building of the E commercial building of this case. The building management affairs of the victim company cannot be deemed as a duty worthy of protection under the Criminal Act. The fourth underground floor used by the victim company as the office is an unauthorized change in common areas and the defendants entered this part is a legitimate exercise of authority, and it does not infringe the room.

In addition, Defendant A did not change the entrance and exit number, and Defendants requested the victim company to transfer the entrance and exit prior to the certification of the content of November 2, 2018, but the court below erred or neglected the above facts.

Nevertheless, the court below which found the Defendants guilty has erred by misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles that affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on Defendant B and C (Defendant B: a fine of KRW 500,00,000 and a fine of KRW 1 million) on Defendant B and C is too unreasonable.

C. The Prosecutor’s sentence sentenced by the lower court against the Defendants (the suspended sentence, the fine of KRW 500,000,000, the fine of KRW 100,000,000, and the fine of KRW 300,000,000,000,

2. Judgment on the misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles by Defendant A, B, and C

A. The relevant legal doctrine is that the crime of intrusion upon a residence is the legal interest protected by the law of peaceful dwelling, so the issue of whether the dwelling person or the guard has the right to reside in the building, etc. does not depend on the establishment of the crime, and it is not possessed.