The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant, as a building manager, found it in order to demand the clock of the clocket operated by the victim to resist the unauthorized parking of the trainees of private teaching institutes and to cut off the vehicle, thereby having access with a legitimate source of authority.

Since the defendant delivered a note to the effect that the vehicle parked without permission is deducted, the defendant has not complied with the withdrawal from the private teaching institute.

폭행의 점에 관하여, 피고인은 학원에서 순순히 나오려고 하였으나 갑자기 나타난 피해자 C이 피고인의 팔을 잡아 비틀면서 질질 끌기에, 피고인은 팔이 아파 이를 모면하기 위해 종이로 피해자의 팔을 몇 차례 쳤을 뿐 손톱으로 할퀸 사실이 없다.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (2 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination 1 on the non-compliance with the removal is based on the right not to infringe upon the freedom of residence guaranteed by the Constitution. Even if the owner of a building is the owner of a building, the crime of intrusion upon residence is established when he/she intrudes on the building lawfully occupied and managed by another person (see Supreme Court Decision 89Do889, Sept. 12, 1989). Thus, if the owner of a building fails to comply with the demand for eviction from the person who lawfully occupied and managed the building, the crime of non-compliance with the removal is established. As long as the building is leased to another person, the owner and the lessee have the right to decide access to and stay in the building. Therefore, the lessee is entitled to have the right to comply with the demand of the lessee. In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, the victim occupied and managed the building of this case by leasing it from the Defendant properly.