All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal;

A. Although Defendant A, B, and B were the employees of F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”), Defendant A was engaged in other business at the time, and did not have been involved in the instant crime, and Defendant B did not have any fact to gather the crime and only moved books, etc. according to Defendant C’s instructions.

B. Since the vacant space of the second floor of the instant commercial building occupied by the Defendants is not only a place where anyone can access, but also a part of F where Defendant C is the representative director, the crime of entering the building is not established on the ground that the Defendants went to the port.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant A and B’s assertion, Defendant A recognized the fact that, as the head of F’s headquarters, Defendant A decided to bring the books, etc. to the instant commercial building (Evidence No. 73 pages), Defendant B directly moves books, etc. to the instant commercial building.

Therefore, Defendant A is recognized to have conspired to implement the act through functional control based on the intention of co-processing and the intention of co-processing, and Defendant B constitutes a co-principal as a person who directly and specifically performed the act.

B. As to the Defendants’ assertion, the legal interest and protection of the legal interest of the crime of intrusion upon residence is a de facto peace for the residence of each person residing in the pertinent residence, and whether the said person has the legal authority to reside in or take measures against the building, etc. does not depend on the establishment of the crime, and even if an illegal occupancy under the private law is carried out, the crime of intrusion upon residence is established if the said person intrudes upon the said residence or building without following due process to exclude it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do8967, Apr. 27, 2007).