The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, despite the pending dispute over the victim management building (hereinafter “instant building”) located in Jindo-gun C (hereinafter “the instant land”) in Jindo-gun, Jindo-gun, Seoul (hereinafter “the instant land”), the fact that the Defendant invadedd without the victim’s permission can be acknowledged.

B. The lower court’s punishment (amounting to KRW 300,00,000) is deemed to be too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination

A. 1) The lower court determined based on the evidence duly adopted and examined as follows.

In light of the relationship between the Defendant and the victim, the registration relationship of the instant land, and the background of the dispute over the instant building, etc., the Defendant, who is a joint inheritance of the instant building, has a legitimate authority to enter the instant building as a joint management right holder of the instant building.

Therefore, the defendant went to the building of this case against the victim's will.

Even if this constitutes a crime of intrusion upon residence, it is difficult to view it as such.

In addition, de facto peace, which is the protection of the legal interest of the crime of intrusion upon residence, is not a problem whether the title of possession is legitimate under private law.

It should be at least legally protected.

If the victim unilaterally commences possession of the building of this case without consultation with other co-inheritors on the division of inherited property, the de facto peace, which can be legally protected in relation to other co-inheritors, has occurred even if it is possible to protect the actual possession in relation to the third party other than the inheritor.

It is difficult to see it.

Therefore, not guilty of this part of the facts charged is pronounced.

2) The lower court’s determination as to the above determination is justifiable even when it was in the first instance trial, and thus, the Prosecutor’s assertion is acceptable.