The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence shall be suspended for the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) in a case where the victim explicitly refused the eviction, the defendant ordered H et al., an employee, to enter the victim’s residence by securing the key of the victim’s official residence in an abnormal manner, and enters the victim’s residence, so long as H enters the victim’s residence, the crime of intrusion is established; (b) the existence of property of the damaged product is not determined as an economic value; and (c) if the damaged product is of a subjective value from the victim’s perspective, it can be the object of the crime of property damage, and thus, the crime of property damage is also established; and (d) the court below acquitted

2. Determination

A. Since the crime of intrusion upon a residence is a de facto legal interest to protect the peace of residence, the issue of whether a person or a person who has a right to reside in a building, etc. does not depend on the establishment of a crime, and even if a person who has no right to possess it is an occupation, the peace of the residence must be protected. Thus, if a right holder intrudes on the building, etc. without following the procedure prescribed by the Act in executing the right, the crime of intrusion upon a residence is established. Even if a person is permitted to enter the building at ordinary times due to the relationship with the resident or manager, if the act of entering the residence is reduced even though it is against the explicit or presumed intention of the resident or manager, the crime of intrusion upon a residence is established, and if the act of entering the house is not contrary to the above intent, unless there are special circumstances, the method of intrusion itself should be deemed as contrary to the method of intrusion (see Supreme Court Decisions 94Do336, Sep. 15, 195; 200Do3137, Jul. 27, 2007).