The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since the Defendant merely ordered the management office to open and deliver entrance doors, there was no intention to commit property damage, and there was no intention to commit a crime, and since the Defendant was entitled to enter the management office as the president of the C apartment council, there was no intention to commit a crime of intrusion on the structure.

B. The Defendant, as the president of the C apartment council, intended to enter the management office for legitimate performance of duties. However, the Defendant’s act of political party opened a door to the head of the Gu, Inc. D affiliated with the existing controlled entity, and entered into the management office without opening the door, and such act constitutes a justifiable act that does not contravene the social rules.

2. Determination:

A. 1) In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, as long as the defendant ordered the repair machine to open a lock door to his name, the defendant could have sufficiently predicted that the above key can be removed and damaged by opening the lock, and the defendant did not refrain from damaging the key repair machine even when it was at the site at the time of the destruction of locks, it is judged that the defendant had a criminal intent of damaging the key repair machine. 2) Since the crime of intrusion upon residence is in fact protected under the law of peace and protection of the law, the issue of whether the resident or manager has the right to reside in or manage the structure is not determined by the establishment of the crime, but by the possession of a person who has no right to possess it, the peace of the residence should be protected. Thus, the crime of intrusion upon residence is established if the right holder intrudes the structure without following the procedure prescribed by law.