The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Error of facts: (a) the Defendant closed his business and entered the sixth floor of the building where E was previously a member of E in the process of ex post facto processing (hereinafter “the instant structure”); (b) the victim did not speak to go from the instant structure; and (c) the Defendant had access to the instant structure with explicit and implied consent from the victim, but the lower court recognized all the facts charged regarding the entry of the structure; (d) so, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (two million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, D is a person who leased the 6,8, and9 floors from the victim F to operate E in the building, and the defendant was the person working for the executive branch of E in the building located in E, and the victim was the de facto owner of the building in which E is the actual owner of the building, E in the capacity to manage the building, and E in the manner of business deterioration around October 2012. D closed down the E, but the period of lease was up to December 2012, and the computer, medical appliances, and house utensils, etc. were left for treatment after the closure of the business and paid the difference to the victim until December 2012. The defendant, after the closure of the business, had no key to the above 6,8,9 floors, automatic doors allowing access to the above 6,9 floors, etc., and had no key to the 1st unit of the building in the hospital, and the defendant, who was the victim’s key to the 1st unit of the hospital.