The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal 1) The Victim Air Force Operations Headquarters (hereinafter “victim”) may request the Defendant to withdraw from the coffee shop in the said Lesnz Center (hereinafter “instant coffee shop”) on the basis of the right to manage E, and the Defendant’s continued operation constitutes a crime of refusing to withdraw.

However, the lower court rendered a not-guilty verdict on this part of the facts charged by misunderstanding the facts.

2) The lower court’s unfair sentencing (a 1.5 million won in penalty) is deemed to be too unhued and unfair.

2. The lower court determined that the lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

2) The crime of intrusion upon residence and non-compliance with the judgment of this court is a de facto legal interest to protect the peace of residence. As such, the establishment of crime does not depend on whether the resident or the inter-resident has a right to be present at the residence or to be present at the building.

Possession of a person who is not entitled to possess

Inasmuch as the peace of residence should be protected, in cases where a right holder intrudes on the residence or structure without following the procedure prescribed by the Act when realizing his/her right, the crime of intrusion is established, and in cases where a right holder fails to comply with the demand for eviction at the place, the crime of refusing to withdraw is established (see Supreme Court Decision 83Do1429, Apr. 24, 1984). According to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the fact that the defendant occupied the coffee shop in this case from April 201 to February 14, 2017 is recognized.

However, the evidence presented by the prosecutor alone, before February 14, 2017, that the victim occupied the instant coffee shop and acquired de facto peace in the instant coffee shop.

It is difficult to recognize it.

In this regard, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the defendant is justifiable.

3...