The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the fact-finding) B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”) and E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”), even if E bears the duty to return the above factory to B due to the rescission of a lease agreement on the manufacturing factory located in Yong-Nam-gun G (hereinafter “instant factory”), the foregoing factory was invaded upon the above factory without complying with the procedures prescribed by the Act, and the Defendant continued such unlawful state, and thus, the crime of impairing structures and interference with business is established against the Defendant.

2. The recognition of facts constituting an offense in a criminal trial ought to be based on strict evidence with probative value, which makes a judge not to have any reasonable doubt. Thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof fails to fully reach the extent that the defendant’s assertion or defense is inconsistent or unreasonable, it should be determined in the interests of the defendant even if there is suspicion of guilt, such as where the defendant’s assertion or defense is inconsistent or unreasonable.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do14487, Apr. 28, 2011). In addition, in a case where the first instance court rendered a judgment not guilty of the facts charged on the ground that there is insufficient evidence to exclude reasonable doubt after undergoing the examination of evidence, such as the examination of witness, in light of the fact that the criminal appellate court has the character as a post-trial trial even after deceiving the Defendant, and the spirit of substantial direct cross-examination under the Criminal Procedure Act, etc., the first instance court may raise probability or doubt as to the facts that

Even if it does not reach the extent of sufficiently resolving the reasonable suspicion caused by the first instance trial, such circumstance alone alone does not lead to finding that there was an error of mistake of facts in the judgment of the first instance court that lack of proof of a crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do11428, Feb. 18, 2016).