All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant B and C (legal scenarios) are illegal possessors of the office of this case. Defendant B and C are employees of the company entrusted with building management by legitimate commercial building management body, and the above Defendants’ act was performed as part of legitimate business execution. Thus, it constitutes a justifiable act under Article 20 of the Criminal Act.

B. The sentence of the lower court (the Defendant B: fine of 2 million won; fine of 3 million won for Defendant A; and fine of 1 million won for Defendant C) is unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Whether certain acts in relation to Defendant B and C’s assertion of legal principles constitute a justifiable act should be reasonably and rationally decided depending on specific cases. To be recognized as a justifiable act, the following requirements should be met: (a) legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act; (b) reasonableness of the means or method of the act; (c) balance between the protected legal interests and the infringed legal interests; (iv) urgency; and (v) supplementary requirements that there are no other means or method other than the act.

(2) According to the records, the defendants' act cannot be deemed as a justifiable act under Article 20 of the Criminal Act in light of all the circumstances, such as the motive, purpose, means, and method of the defendants' act, and the situation leading up to such measures. Thus, the defendants' act cannot be deemed as being a justifiable act under Article 20 of the Criminal Act, and the defendants' assertion in this part is not accepted. The defendant's act cannot be deemed as being a legitimate act under Article 20 of the Criminal Act, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that there is no urgent need to leave the commercial building of this case, such as an irrecoverable damage to the occupants of the commercial building of this case due to the defendant's possession of the office of this case.