Defendants are not guilty.

1. The Defendants, as married couple, was a tenant of 115 and 123 commercial buildings on the first floor of the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Building.

On December 3, 2016, at the same time, the Defendants moved from the above commercial building in accordance with the order of surrender on December 3, 2016, and moved to the 112 and 113 commercial buildings managed by F under the delegation from the victim E on the first floor underground of the above D building, and kept the said commercial building in custody, despite the request of F on the following day, the Defendants occupied the said commercial building and did not leave the commercial building.

Accordingly, the Defendants jointly intruded on the structure managed by others.

2. In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court, the following circumstances are recognized.

① At the beginning, the Defendants concluded a commission sales contract or commercial building lease contract with the divided owners, such as G, etc. and most divided stores of the first underground floor of this case, and lawfully occupied and used the entire restaurant of this case including 112 and 113, and even if they did not specify in the contract the 112 and 113 as an object, they continued to occupy and use for a long time with the implied consent of possession on the side of G, the ownership company.

② At the time when the first instance judgment was rendered on July 2016 to November 11, 2016 regarding the request for the delivery of a building by the owners of around the following: (a) the Defendants’ possession was terminated and removed; and (b) the Defendants intruded by entering the commercial buildings prescribed in 112 and 113 as stated in the facts charged.

It is difficult to find out the circumstances to view.

③ On the other hand, the Defendants continued possession at the first floor restaurant of this case in order to compensate for the facility investment cost, etc. after the discontinuance of business and the termination of the contract, and the Defendants continued to move to another head office (12 and 113) where the specific living place or place of storage is not partitioned in the outer form, after the issuance of the judgment in favor of the Plaintiff in the dispute resolution committee, after suspending the use of Nos. 115 and 123 within the first floor of the underground.