Text
The judgment of the first instance shall be reversed.
The sentence of punishment against the Defendants shall be suspended.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendants (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of the law, and improper sentencing) (1) The instant building has the character of a public place, and thus, its entry into the instant building cannot be punished as a residential intrusion only with the entry into the instant building.
(2) On December 28, 2015, the Defendants entered the instant building for the purpose of expressing opposition and visa against the self-determination agreement, and thus, constitutes a legitimate act.
(3) The sentence imposed by the first instance court on the Defendants (a fine of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.
(b) Each of the punishments above the first deliberation of the Prosecutor (Improper Sentencing) is too uneasible.
2. Determination
A. Even if the Defendants’ act constitutes intrusion upon a house, if the Defendants entered the place against the explicit or presumed intent of the manager, then the crime of intrusion upon a building is established (see Supreme Court Decisions 95Do2674, Mar. 28, 1997; 2006Do7079, etc.). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court, I building A (hereinafter “the instant building”) was owned by the foreign fund company called “U” and managed by E.S. members upon the delegation of the said company, and the said company again delegated the safety and security duties to the company called “V”, and the 1 to 2 to 8th floor of the said building was occupied by H, 911 to 8th floor, and the 30th floor of the instant building was occupied by H, 911 to 70, and the Defendants, including the 30th floor of the instant building, were not required to have entered the instant building, and the said company’s order and purpose should not be agreed upon.