The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles by misunderstanding the part of the judgment below which found the defendant guilty on the ground that the defendant's act constitutes a crime of intrusion on a structure, even though the defendant's act was judged to constitute a crime of intrusion on a structure, and the part of the crime of intrusion on a structure was judged to be guilty.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The court below also asserted the same purport, but the court below found the defendant guilty of the crime of intrusion on the building in this case, while rejected the defendant's allegation on the ground of detailed reasons. The circumstances cited by the court below are as follows: ① In the crime of intrusion on a house, the term "residential or structure" refers to not simply a house, but also includes the above main points. Intrusion does not require any resistance against the resident or the victim's will. Even if it is generally open place, the manager may prohibit or restrict the entry, and if he enters the residential or building premises excessively contrary to the intention of prohibition or restriction (see Supreme Court Decision 82Do1363, Mar. 8, 1983; 200Do1363, Mar. 8, 198).