The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The Defendant, who misleads the gist of the grounds for appeal, has occupied a household building (hereinafter referred to as “family building of this case”) as stated in the facts charged in the original judgment while living therein.

H purchased the instant building from H, and duly acquired the ownership and right of possession from a third party, and commenced possession by allowing AG, a partner, to reside from March 4, 2016.

At the time of the commencement of possession of the building of this case, there was no symbol that the victim continues to hold possession as the exercise of the right of retention, or that the actual possession management was carried out, and there was no actual possession and management.

Therefore, the defendant cannot be deemed to have invadedd the building of this case in relation to the victim. Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

The punishment of the court below (700,000 won) which is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

Judgment

In the lower court’s determination as to the assertion of mistake, the Defendant made the same assertion as the grounds for appeal in this part, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion and found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged by stating in detail the assertion and its determination (in light of the facts and circumstances of the judgment, the victim claimed a lien and occupied the building of this case, and the Defendant invaded the building of this case against the victim’s will) under the title “determination as to the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel”.

Examining the judgment of the court below and the court below in comparison with the evidence duly adopted and examined, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is an error of law by mistake of facts as alleged by the defendant in the judgment below.

subsection (b) of this section.

Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts is without merit (the Defendant was merely a defensive act to remove an illegal interference with the victim).