The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the Defendant has occupied and used the office solely from January 2, 2013 to July 12, 2013 in a peaceful manner; and (b) therefore, (c) the need to leave the victim C.

The Gu refused to comply with

Even if there has been a violation of eviction under Article 319 (2) of the Criminal Code, it can not be said that there has been a violation of eviction under Article

2. Summary of the facts charged and the judgment of the court below

A. The summary of the facts charged is as from January 2013, 2013, the Defendant borrowed KRW 10 million from the victim C and leased by the victim, and the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D apartment 707 office (hereinafter “instant office”).

3. Until 31. The agreement was reached for joint use.

The defendant, within the office of this case around 10:00 on July 12, 2013, in order to leave the office of this case as of March 31, 2013, because the agreed term has expired, the defendant shall leave the office of this case.

the Gu shall be subject to the Gu.

However, the defendant may continue to conduct the business and pay the borrowed money from the victim, and the defendant may leave the victim.

If a police officer fails to comply with the Gu and fails to leave the office of this case until he/she arrives at the office of this case on the same day at around 10:23 of the same day without justifiable grounds, such as not leaving the office of this case.

The Gu refused to comply with the Gu.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty on the charges by admitting as evidence the Defendant’s statement at the lower court and the investigative agency, C’s statement at the police, and copy of the written agreement.

3. The judgment of this Court

A. The legal doctrine and the crime of intrusion upon residence and the crime of non-compliance with the escape are de facto protected legal interest and therefore, whether a resident or a recipient has a right to live or cross-entry in a building, etc. does not depend on the establishment of the crime, and the peace of residence should be protected even if the possession of a non-exclusive person is not a right to occupy.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Do4082 Decided August 23, 2007). B.

Judgment

The prosecutor shall be in the position of joint possessor with respect to the office of this case by the victim C.