The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In full view of the following facts: (a) the Defendant is an employee under C’s instruction, who is the head of the management office of D apartment commercial buildings (hereinafter “instant commercial buildings”); and (b) the Defendant and C had frequently obstructed the victim’s exercise of the victim’s right of retention against the instant commercial buildings even before the Defendant and C; (c) the Defendant, despite being aware of the intrusion of 102 for the purpose of interfering with the right of retention, entered the instant commercial building 102 for the purpose of interfering with the right of retention; (d) thus, the Defendant participated in the act of interfering

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which judged otherwise although the defendant's act does not constitute legitimate business execution is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

2. Determination

(a) "When two or more persons jointly commit a crime of intrusion upon residence" under Article 2 (2) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act requires that there exists a so-called co-offender relationship between them. In addition, where several persons are aware of another person's crime in the same opportunity at the same place and commit the crime using the same.

(See Supreme Court Decision 90Do2153 delivered on January 29, 1991). B.

First, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was offered in advance to enter C and 102 commercial buildings of this case.

It is difficult to recognize that the commercial building of this case was entered into 102 under the direction of C or C, and there is no other evidence to recognize it.

C. Meanwhile, the public offering may take place at the place of crime, and in order to recognize that the Defendant infringed upon the instant commercial building 102 jointly with C as stated in the facts charged, it is necessary to evaluate that the Defendant invadedd the instant commercial building 102 managed by the victim.

However, in full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the defendant listen to the sound in 102 of the commercial building of this case as an employee of the commercial building management officer and 102.