The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. “A warehouse and office” inside “D”, which is derived from misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (Seoul High Court Decision 2019Da65777), is not a separate structure, and entry into “D” which is open for 24 hours and operated by an unmanned cannot be deemed an intrusion.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to the assertion of mistake of facts and the following circumstances, which can be known by the court below, based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., ① this part of the facts charged itself contains five objects of intrusion into a structure as “D,” ② The defendant stolen the defendant, and the four of them are located inside the warehouse and the office inside the “D,” and the remainder was located outside the office. However, this part of the charge is deemed to constitute a crime of intrusion against the general public, even if the entry into the office or the manager of the office allowed entry into the crime, since the crime of intrusion was committed against all 5 skins, and the applicable provisions are deemed to be “D” itself, and the object of intrusion into the structure is “D”, and the part of the charge constitutes a crime of intrusion against the general public’s intent to escape entry into the structure after the defendant intruded “D” and then constitutes a crime of intrusion upon the general public.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Do7079 Decided March 15, 2007, etc.).