The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Error of fact 1) The Defendant is the owner of the instant housing promotion center, or the victim’s regional housing association (hereinafter “victim’s association”) under the lawful possession and management delegated by the owner.

(2) The victim association unilaterally terminated the management service contract with K to indicate that it did not intend to use the instant housing promotion center, and it did not have any need to engage in the recruitment of union members because it did not obtain the approval for additional recruitment of union members. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the defendant's act interfered with the business of the victim association.

3) Ultimately, the Defendant’s act cannot be deemed as a obstruction of building entry or business, and the Defendant did not have such intention. Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below convicting the Defendant of the facts charged in this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. (B) The sentence sentenced by the court below of unfair sentencing (one year of suspended execution in six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of the assertion of mistake of facts is based on the legal principles related to the crime of intrusion of residence as the legal interest protected by the law, so the issue of whether a resident or a guard has a right to reside in a structure, etc. does not depend on the establishment of a crime, and even if a person who has no right to possess is possessed, the peace of the residence should be protected. Thus, if a right holder intrudes on a structure, etc. without following the procedure prescribed by the Act in exercising his/her right, the crime of intrusion of residence is established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Do1760, Nov. 10, 1987).