beta
Text
All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of the grounds for appeal - In fact, the victim company occupied the new factory (b) in a state of non-execution (hereinafter “the factory of this case”).
It can not be seen that the Defendants entered the factory of this case by using the key for safety management as the contractor. Thus, the Defendants cannot be viewed as an intrusion on the structure.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendants guilty of the intrusion of a structure is erroneous by mistake.
2. Determination
A. On April 2015, the Defendants, as the competent authority did not approve the use of the instant factory, concluded that they were into the said factory building to prevent the use of the said factory by the victim company.
Defendants, around 13:50 on the 29th of the same month, open the entrance of the above building and enter the said building by using the keys to the above factory building held in front of the above victim company's factory building at around 13:50, and
5. 15. 16:30 on the 21st day of the same month, around 12:19 on the 21st day of the same month, entered the said building in the above manner three times in total.
Accordingly, the Defendants conspiredd with the victim company's structure.
B. The lower court determined as follows: ① (a) the construction work of the instant plant was partially constructed but was almost completed around December 2014 by the Defendants; (b) and (c) the construction work of the instant plant was paid in most times; and (c) the victim company actually occupied and managed the said (b) and (c) Dong from January 2015; and (b) the victim company had operated the machinery installed in the instant factory while the use was not approved continuously thereafter, with respect to the construction supervisor’s operation of the machinery installed in the instant plant, around April 2015, it is impossible to manufacture the product at the instant plant that obtained permission as a part warehouse from the victim company as a result of the construction supervisor’s alteration of the factory and approval for use.