The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of the instant assertion of mistake of fact, there was a fact that entered the former H’s camping site (hereinafter “the instant camping site”), but there was no perception that the Defendant entered the said site against the will of the manager as he entered the said site with the direction of the representative of the AL Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “AL”) to which the Defendant belongs.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, and the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence that the court below sentenced to the defendant (2 million won a penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant's ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by authority. The facts constituting the crime of this case in collaboration with the defendant B and C, and intrudes on the structure by entering the building into the open design of this case managed by the victim G on August 7, 2014, and even though this is a single crime, the court below committed an unlawful act dealt with as concurrent crimes, and such an unlawful act affected the judgment.

Since the judgment of the court below can no longer be maintained.

The defendant's assertion of misunderstanding the facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, despite the above reasons for reversal. Therefore, the following is examined.

B. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant at the time of the instant case was not a mere employee of AL, but a representative of the said company, comprehensively delegated the work related to scrap iron, etc. accumulated in the site of the instant site from K, a representative of the said company, to K, and thereby, the defendant was well aware that there was a dispute between AL and the victim G in relation to the instant site. At the time of the instant case, the defendant occupied the instant site of this case before the victim G, and the defendant was a ske in the instant site of this case.