The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles did not have entered the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office D (hereinafter “instant office”).

Since the defendant dissatisfyd the office of this case upon the request of the person who has legitimate authority, it cannot be viewed that the defendant's dissatisfyd into a structure.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (a fine of KRW 700,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, since the crime of intrusion upon residence is the protected legal interest of the law, the issue of whether the resident or manager has the right to reside in or manage the building, etc. does not depend on the establishment of the crime. Even if a person is permitted to enter a normal building due to the relationship with the resident or manager, if the act of entering the residence is committed against the explicit or presumed intention of the resident or manager, the crime of intrusion upon residence is established, and if the entrance is not a normal entry through the entrance, the method of intrusion itself must be deemed to go against the above intent unless there are special circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 94Do336, Sept. 15, 1995). The lower court determined that the Defendant occupied the office of this case by the withdrawal of delegation authority prior to June 2016, since the Defendant lost the right to enter the office of this case.

Examining the following circumstances revealed through the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the defendant's act of entering the office of this case as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below regardless of whether the F's possession was legitimate or not.