The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

1. The scope of the judgment of this court is that the court below sentenced the Defendant to the charge of intrusion on the building among the facts charged against the Defendant, and sentenced the Defendant not guilty of the remainder of the facts charged. The Defendant appealed against the guilty part, and the prosecutor appealed only to the charge of defamation (misunderstanding of facts) among the guilty part and the acquitted part, and thus, the part of the judgment of the court below’s acquittal was separated and finalized.

Therefore, the judgment of this court is limited to defamation among the guilty part of the judgment below and the acquitted part of the judgment of the court.

2. Summary of reasons for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below which found Defendant (1) guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, even though the victim’s act of intrusion on the structure was committed with the consent of the victim, or the victim’s act of self-help or legitimate act was dismissed.

(2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (1) misunderstanding the legal principles and the reasons why the defendant posted the printed material are not solely for the public interest because the victim's collection of overdue management expenses is not for the collection of overdue management expenses. Thus, the illegality cannot be deemed to be dismissed under Article 310 of the Criminal Act. However, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of this part of the charges

(2) The above sentence, which the court below rendered unfair sentencing, is too unhued and unfair.

3. Determination

A. (1) The summary of the criminal facts stated in the judgment of the court below regarding the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding the legal principles (1) stated in the judgment of the court below, for the reason that the Defendant partially delayed the management expenses of the victim G operating the “FFF Driving Schools” (hereinafter “private teaching institutes of this case”) under 501 of the instant building, the Defendant was willing to enter the warehouse of the instant private teaching institute and arbitrarily installed a corrective device to prevent the victim from entering the rooftop warehouse