The judgment of the first instance shall be reversed.

Defendant

Punishment against A shall be 300,000 won.

Defendant

A The above fine shall be imposed.

1. The judgment of the court of this case on February 2, 201, the decision of the court of this case is unfair sentencing, i.e., mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles on the grounds of appeal (i., entry to confirm the status of interior interior interior interior interior interior in accordance with Article 14 of the lease contract in relation to the issue of joint residence intrusion; (ii) Defendant B merely left the office door of the branch office flick, and did not enter the office flick in relation to the issue of interference with the operation of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office;

A. (1) With respect to the Defendants’ assertion of mistake of facts, the court of first instance rejected the Defendants’ assertion on the grounds that the provision of a lease agreement provides that “a lessor may, if necessary, investigate the use and maintenance status, etc. of the subject matter of this agreement at all times,” and that the Defendants, a lessor, obtained the right to access the victim’s office without the victim’s consent, and that there is no circumstance to deem the Defendants’ act of impairing the victim’s office in disregarding the victim’s explicit objection and impairing the victim’s office as a legitimate act. In light of the records, the first instance judgment is just and acceptable, and there is no illegality of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment, and thus, the Defendants’ assertion cannot be accepted.

(2) According to the victim’s statement at the court of first instance as to the assertion that Defendant B did not enter the office, it can be acknowledged that Defendant B entered the victim’s office at the time. Thus, based on such evidence, the first instance court’s decision that found Defendant B guilty of this part of the facts charged is acceptable, and there is no error of misconception of facts that affected the conclusion of the judgment.