The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant has a legitimate right to lease the second floor of the B Commercial Building (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”) in Jeju-si (hereinafter referred to as the “instant dispute part”), and therefore, the Defendant has the right to enter the said dispute part.

However, around January 12, 2018, the victims obstructed access to the dispute part of this case by installing locking devices at the entrance door of the first floor of the building of this case, and the defendant revoked the locking devices and entered the part of the dispute part of this case. As such, the defendant's act constitutes a legitimate exercise of the right of lease and does not constitute a crime of intrusion upon residence.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. In the lower court’s determination, the Defendant asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal, denying this part of the facts charged, and considering the following circumstances, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the following grounds: (a) as the lessee’s status as to the instant dispute was transferred to, or succeeded to, E; and (b) as long as, E lawfully delivers, and immediately leaves the said dispute part to, the victims on January 12, 2018, the Defendant, who did not have any right, was released from, the lock-up system of the first floor of the instant building; (c) contrary to the explicit or presumed intent of the victims, who are the managers of the said dispute part, and thus, constitutes a crime of intrusion upon residence.

1) On October 1, 2014, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with the victims, setting the lease deposit and annual rent of KRW 5 million for the instant dispute between the victims, and the term of lease from October 1, 2014 to September 30, 2015 (hereinafter “instant first agreement”).

The Defendant concluded a contract and agreed to extend the term of lease for three years under the agreement. 2) The Defendant agreed to extend the term of lease.