All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The crime of failing to comply with the gist of the grounds for appeal is the legal protection of the victim's legal interests. Thus, the defendants who possess a building under legitimate authority and do not have legitimate authority to possess the building constitutes the crime of refusing to comply with the request of the victim's company for eviction.

Nevertheless, the court below acquitted the Defendants of the facts charged in this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The court below held that Defendant A was a representative director.

E Co., Ltd., as a contractor awarded a contract for a new construction of “I” with the victim company, has continuously occupied each building after constructing and continuously occupied it. The victim company did not have the fact that each of the above buildings was delivered or occupied by E Co., Ltd.; however, regardless of whether the Defendants had legitimate title to occupy each of the above buildings, the Defendants did not comply with the victim company’

Even if the victim's dwelling peace cannot be seen as a crime of refusing to leave due to the victim's failure to comply, the court rendered a judgment of innocence against the defendants.

B. The crime of non-compliance with the eviction under Article 319(2) of the Criminal Act is a de facto dwelling peace and legal interest protected by the law, and the crime is established if a person does not comply with the demand for eviction from the dwelling, management structure, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do4048, Dec. 10, 2015). The demand for eviction should be made by the occupant or manager who actually occupies the pertinent structure, etc. and actually maintains peace in dwelling.

In light of the above legal principles, in addition to the circumstances stated by the court below, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, namely, buildings and doors since E corporation constructed each of the above buildings.