The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. In light of the sentencing that is sentenced to the summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) to other accomplices (the sentencing amounting to KRW 2 million or KRW 3 million), the sentence of the court below (the imprisonment of eight months and the suspension of execution of two years) is too unreasonable.

2. The fact that the decision-making defendant divided and reflected his own crime, and that the compensation for damage was made by the accomplice is favorable to the defendant.

However, the crime of this case is highly likely to be committed because the defendant mobilized the employees of the service company who are his subordinate employees and intrudes into the building where many people exercise lien and damages the entrance, etc. in the process.

In light of the fact that the Defendant again committed the instant crime without having been punished by a majority of the criminal records before the same offense, the possibility of criticism is the same as other accomplices.

The scope of recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines in full view of the aforementioned circumstances and other various sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments of the instant case, including the background of the instant crime, the age, sex, environment, etc. of the Defendant, and the sentencing guidelines for the enactment of the Supreme Court sentencing committee.

1. Where significant damage has been restored (the area of recommendation and the scope of recommendation) to the category 1 (Habitual, Cumulative, Special Damage, etc.) (Special Sentencing Persons) (Special Sentencing Persons) (the area of recommendation and recommendation), the area of mitigation of punishment, April of imprisonment, 10 months;

2. No sentencing criteria for special crimes of intrusion upon residence are set.

3. More than 4 months of imprisonment with prison labor for the standards for handling multiple crimes (the crime of damaging special property and the crime of intrusion upon special residence for which the sentencing criteria are not set are concurrent crimes; therefore, the lower court’s punishment is too large to be unfair, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.