The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the facts charged against the Defendant’s intrusion at the construction site of this case are sufficiently recognized and the Defendant’s infringement of the building at the construction site of this case is not against the victim’s explicit or presumed intent, and the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant’s infringement of the building at the construction site of this case is not against the victim’s explicit or presumed intent is without merit.

(1) Since the crime of intrusion upon residence is de facto protected as a legal interest to protect the peace of residence, the establishment of crime does not depend on whether a resident or a guard holds the right to reside in a building, etc., and even if a person possesses no right to possess it, peace of residence should be protected. Thus, even if a right holder intrudes a building as a means of self-help as an enforcement of the right, the crime of intrusion upon residence is established.

(2) On April 18, 2008, M Co., Ltd. receives a contract for the remaining construction works from Jtel Association, the owner of the instant construction site, and then receives a contract for the same year.

5. The construction site of this case was delivered to the victim who is the representative director at the end of the horse and the possession was commenced lawfully.

경찰조사에서 피고인은 “유치권자들도 공사현장에 울타리 밖에 컨테이너를 설치해 놓고 있고 저희 J비상대책위원회도 울타리 밖에 컨테이너를 설치해 놨고 M과 J오피스텔 조합은 공사현장에서 점유를 하고 있죠”, "M측은 지금 현장에서 공사를 하려고 버티는...