The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (i.e., "K," without title, occupies a substation as indicated in the judgment below without title (hereinafter "the transformation room in this case"), the defendant, who is an employee of D (hereinafter "D"), who is a one-half of the land site E-gu in Incheon Bupyeong-gu and the 41,938.5 square meters of land and its ground (hereinafter "the land and buildings in this case"), is naturally entitled to access to the transformation room in this case, and in particular, as the defendant unilaterally enters a certain factory by "K to connect electricity," there is no punishment against the defendant's act.

Therefore, the act of the defendant entering the transformation room of this case does not constitute a crime of intrusion upon a structure.

[Attachment] The crime of interference with business was removed unilaterally without the consent of D, which is the right holder of 1/2, and this does not constitute a duty of protection under the Criminal Act.

Therefore, this part of the facts charged does not constitute the crime of interference with business.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 1.5 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. As to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. (i) The crime of intrusion upon residence is a crime of intrusion upon a building, since it is the legal interest protected by the law of peace of a residence. Thus, whether a resident or a guard has the legal authority to reside in or to accommodate a building, etc. does not depend upon the establishment of the crime. On the other hand, even if the person loses his/her authority after lawful dwelling or receipt of a bribe and illegal possession is carried out, if the person having the right intrudes upon the residence or structure without following due process to exclude it, the crime of

(Supreme Court Decision 82Do1363 delivered on March 8, 1983). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the representative of the building entrustment management business chain: W and the actual management business are victims G.