The judgment below

The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,000.

The defendant above.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. It is difficult to view the act of insult A, etc. to constitute “an act of expressing an abstract judgment or a sacrific sentiment that may undermine the people’s social assessment without indicating facts,” and the above act by the Defendant’s person constitutes an act that does not contravene social rules or passive defense.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the offense of insult in this case is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts, the failure of deliberation, and the omission of judgment.

2) The Defendant, around 204, prepared a lease agreement on No. 401 between A and H as stated in the facts charged (hereinafter “the instant building”) and the use of private documents prepared in H’s name, including the preparation of a private document and the use of qualification reproduction.

Accordingly, the Defendant, with the consent of H, prepared a lease agreement on No. 202 of the instant building as a legitimate representative.

Therefore, the defendant has no intention to commit the crime of preparing private documents and the crime of gambling private documents prepared for qualification.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the crime of preparing private documents and the crime of gambling private documents prepared for qualification as the qualification in this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and the incomplete deliberation.

3) A was the truster of the instant building in the name of the building, and even after H, the trustee, completed the registration for the transfer of ownership of the instant building to G, he/she was the owner of the interest on the instant building.

Therefore, as long as the defendant enters the building 303 under the permission of A, the crime of intrusion on the building of this case is not established, and the defendant has no intention to commit the crime of intrusion on the building.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty as to the crime of intrusion on the structure of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

B. Sentencing;