The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The lower court acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged, even though the gist of the grounds for appeal (the fact-finding) found that the Defendant invadedd into the (Gu)D hotel structure managed by the victim (hereinafter “instant building”), as shown in the facts charged.

2. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the victim consented to the Defendant’s use of the instant building and the consent to the construction of the instant building based on his/her succession to the status of tourist accommodation business (section 59, page 63 of the Investigation Record). The Defendant, upon approval from the building owner on May 2, 2013, was under construction of the instant building on the plot of land (section 58 of the Investigation Record), and the Defendant installed a caps, the security guards of the instant building. The Defendant released the closure of the closure installed by the Defendant, and installed an Es won, the security guards of the instant building. The Defendant, upon contact with the closure staff, confirmed that he/she was the owner of the instant building and entered the instant building while there was a police officer (section 45, page 52 of the Investigation Record).

According to the above facts, the defendant, as the owner of the building of this case, has the authority to enter the building of this case for safety management, and in light of the background leading up to the defendant's entering the building of this case and the situation at the time of entering the building of this case, the defendant seems to have had considerable reason to enter the building of this case. Thus, it is difficult to view that the defendant's entering the building of this case was an intrusion upon the building of this case

On September 5, 2014, prior to the existence of the instant case, the judgment of winning part of the victim was finalized in the lawsuit claiming cancellation of provisional registration of the instant building filed against the Defendant, but the said judgment is the building of this case by the Defendant.