The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

For the following reasons, the injured party D has no management authority over the 8th floor facility management room of B shopping districts (hereinafter “B shopping districts”) and the accused has access to the facility management room of B shopping districts, even if the accused entered the above facility management room, the crime of intrusion on the structure is not established even if he/she entered the above facility management room, or there was no intention to impair the building.

On April 9, 2016, the resolution of the extraordinary meeting of the management body on which C was appointed as the manager of B, is null and void (Seoul High Court ruled that the above resolution was null and void on December 19, 2018, and the judgment became final and conclusive on April 26, 2019), and the contract between C and the victim who delegated B management to C is null and void.

Therefore, the victim is not entitled to manage the B shopping family.

The defendant, as a sectional owner of B's family, has the authority to enter the facility management office of B's family members for common use.

The defendant, as the representative of J Co., Ltd., entered into a contract between 75 and 88 tenants individually to be entrusted with the management of B shopping districts, has the authority to enter the facility management office.

Even if the defendant does not have the right to access the above facility management office, entry into the facility management office is intended to collect evidence to be used in a retirement allowance claim lawsuit filed by E, working in the facility management office, against the defendant (the original case 2019No566 case) or is intended to prevent the victim from engaging in unfair management (the original case 2019No1293 case).

The defendant's act of causing property damage (the original case 2019 High Court Decision 2019 High Court Decision 1294) is a legitimate act to suppress the victim C's unfair management act.

In light of the fact that the victim accepted the defendant's assertion and established the "self-defa" at the expense of the victim, the victim subsequently accepted the defendant's act.