The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding ① When entering into a lease contract with the victim Co., Ltd. ① in a case where the defendant takes the machinery out of the machinery through the interior located on the part of the victim’s building, the defendant obtained a comprehensive prior permission to occupy the factory site of the victim as the mobile passage. Thus, the defendant’s act of entering the factory site of the victim at the time of the instant case does not constitute intrusion on the victim’s factory site, but is not the case of household affairs.

Even if the defendant's act is an act for preserving the machinery owned by the defendant in relation to the creditors of the victim in the implementation of the so-called "workout" ("the so-called "workout"), it is reasonable that the defendant's act constitutes a justifiable act that does not violate the social norms.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (one million won penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Whether the resident or manager has the authority to reside or manage a building, etc., since the crime of intrusion upon residence against the above assertion is a de facto legal interest to protect the peace of residence.

The establishment of a crime does not depend on the establishment of a crime, and even if a person who has access to the building is permitted due to the relationship with the resident or manager, if the act of entering the building was committed in spite of the explicit or presumed intention of the resident or manager, the crime of intrusion upon the residence is established, and if the act of entering the building is not done in a normal manner through the entrance, unless there are special circumstances, the method of intrusion itself should be deemed to go against the above intent (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do2595, Aug. 23, 2007, etc.). The following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below regarding the instant case, namely, the defendant of the non-permanent corporation, before the crime of this case was committed.