The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of punishment shall be suspended against the Defendants.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants 1) In a public place where Defendants 1 and 2 were aware of the fact, the Defendants’ entry into the public place where the general public can freely access and such entry does not constitute intrusion on the structure.

2) The Defendants’ act of intrusion on structures by misunderstanding the legal principles constitutes a legitimate act under Article 20 of the Criminal Act, which was committed to resist the anti-humanity of the agreement entered into between Japan and the Republic of Korea.

3) The punishment of the lower court is too heavy.

B. The lower court’s sentence against the prosecutor Defendants is too minor.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendants’ assertion of misunderstanding of the facts and legal principles, even if the Defendants’ entry into a structure where the general public’s entry is permitted against the explicit or presumed intent of the manager, the crime of intrusion into the structure is established (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do7079, Mar. 15, 2007, etc.). In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the Defendants’ entry into the K Building A Dong (hereinafter “the instant building”) by the victim Pusswon Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim”), even if the Defendants did not have access to the instant building by the employees of the victim company (hereinafter “victim company”).

A) The I and J, which are subject to the Defendants’ collective expression of intent, are located in the 8th to 11th floor of the instant building (total 17 floors).

In the building of this case, as a manager of the building of this case, damage companies performing the business of protecting the peace of residence of the occupant persons or organizations, and with a view to collectively indicating the validity and legitimacy of the so-called “the above-mentioned inside agreement” against I et al. in the building of this case where the occupant I et al. are located.