The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts) is as follows: (a) the Defendant did not attach a glass window as stated in the facts charged; and (b) entered the instant dan with an intention to enter the instant dan; (c) so, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged.

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, ① enforcement officers affiliated with the Seoul Southern District Court are subject to punishment in cases where: (a) enforcement officers assigned with the Seoul Southern District Court (Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2016Da5027, Aug. 4, 2016) transferred the instant dan 5027 possessed by the Defendant, etc. to C with the title of enforcement title on August 4, 2016.

The public notice to the purport that “the Defendant was attached to the entrance of the instant dan,” and ② around 02:45 on August 5, 2016, the Defendant went in front of the instant dan, and was staying in the vicinity of the instant danran bar for more than ten minutes, and taken a public notice box attached to the entrance into his/her handphone, or opened the entrance by altering the key of the entrance without permission. “The Defendant got in front of the instant dan without permission.” ③ Around 02:58 on the same day, the Defendant went into the instant dan, and went out several minutes, and ④ A photograph taken at the morning on the same day, that the glass near the locking device of the instant dan was broken.

According to the above facts, the Defendant appears to have invaded upon the entrance door of the instant danran bar (the CCTV image taken at the time is difficult to verify whether the Defendant was accompanied by the entrance door, but it can be sufficiently recognized in light of the facts mentioned above). Even if the Defendant’s assertion does not go against the entrance door door door, the Defendant was handed over by compulsory execution.