The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. 1) The defendant's opening (hereinafter "the opening of this case") did not constitute a victim.

2) Even if the victim had the instant opening, the victim had the instant opening.

Even if the defendant set up all the doors, etc. of the Chuncheon-si B building (hereinafter "the building of this case"), but the damaged person was allowed to enter the building without permission, and the building is attached to the opening of this case at his own care, so there is no negligence on the part of the defendant.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Although the lower court also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in this part, the lower court rejected the said assertion on the grounds of various detailed circumstances as indicated in its reasoning.

In regard to the various circumstances indicated by the lower court, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, namely, the Defendant asserted to the effect that he had a legitimate right to occupy the building of this case, but the Defendant has a lien on the building of this case even before committing the instant crime.

The above building was invaded upon and received a summary order of KRW 3 million due to the crime of intrusion upon the building. Even if the data submitted by the defendant are closely examined, the defendant had the title to exclusively occupy the building at the time of the crime of this case.

(2) At the time of committing the instant crime, the instant building was owned by I, and the victim sold the said building to I.

J as the relative of J, I was delegated the authority to enter the building of this case to preserve and manage the building of this case and to help third parties, and therefore, the Defendant had the authority to enter the building of this case.