The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal (fact-finding) is as follows: (a) the Defendant had access to the office of the management office B; (b) was released from the office of the management office B; (c) was released from the office of the management office B by the completion of the Defendant’s 3 to 4 minutes; (d) the management office may enter the office without special permission; (c) the Defendant was allowed to enter the office without going through a special permission procedure; (d) the Defendant agreed with B; (e) the instant case was a temporary collision, including a dispute over the management right; and (e) the Defendant was a basic duty to prevent B from falsely misrepresenting the management office as a legitimate manager; and (e) the Defendant cannot request B to leave the office to the extent that the Defendant exercises his authority. In light of the above, the Defendant’

Although it cannot be deemed that the Gu did not refuse, the court below found the defendant guilty, which erred by misunderstanding the fact and affected the judgment.

Judgment

The crime of non-compliance with the removal of the person who lawfully enters the dwelling place shall be required to leave the dwelling place.

The crime is established when the Gu does not go through the Gu. The crime of intrusion upon residence and the crime of non-compliance with the escape is the law protected by the law of the peace of the dwelling. Thus, the issue of whether a resident or a person who has a right to live in a building, etc. does not depend on the establishment of the crime, and the peace of the residence should be protected even if possession of a person who has no right to occupy

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Do4082 Decided August 23, 2007). In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the court below and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, the court below’s determination that Defendant A did not comply with B’s eviction request is justifiable, and thus, Defendant A’s allegation in this part is rejected.

The building of the G building of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan City (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”) shall be located in the building.