The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1.(a)

The summary of the facts charged in this case is as follows: (a) from June 16, 2015 to June 17:10, 2015, the Defendant was discovered to be exposed to the subway Security Agency D with respect to the sale of liquid books against many unspecified passengers without the right to sell liquid books; and (b) throughout several times, the Defendant was released to the subway Security Agency D with Seoul Meart to sell liquid books from around 16:0 to around 17:10.

It is the fact that the Gu has not complied with it without justifiable reasons.

B. The court below found the defendant guilty on the ground that the subway security officer, who is railroad workers, demands the withdrawal of the defendant on the premise that the sales of X-ri, prohibited from sale, was conducted at the store of this case, and that the defendant's act of failing to comply with this constitutes the crime of non-compliance with the eviction under the Criminal

2. The above determination by the court below is difficult to accept for the following reasons.

It is a crime of non-compliance with the eviction under Article 319 (2) of the Criminal Act, or a crime of de facto peace such as a building, room, etc., which is protected by the law, and must be removed from residents or managers or from

It shall be established if the Gu does not comply with it;

(See Supreme Court Decision 2015Do4048 Decided December 10, 2015). Although a lessee has a legitimate authority to reside, management and possession with respect to a residence, etc., it is not possible to become a resident or an occupant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do1890, Jan. 17, 2008). As a result of the termination of a lease agreement, even if the lessee was requested by the lessor to deliver the leased object, such demand for delivery does not lose the lessee’s right to residence or management and possession of the leased object.

B. The reasoning and records of the lower judgment reveal the following facts.

1) L Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “L”)

on January 1, 2014