The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the Defendant had entered the instant building on September 23, 2016 around 15:00 on September 23, 2016, the Defendant did not have invaded on the instant building on around 19:23 on the same day.

At around 19:23 on the same day, the Defendant taken the inside of the warehouse without entering the underground warehouse in front of the underground stairs of the building in accordance with the official stairs of the building in order to verify the goods owned by the Defendant, which show light on the side of the underground warehouse of the building of this case, and during that process, the Defendant reported to the police.

On the wind, the noise has gone away the building without entering the underground warehouse at the end of the dispute.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and thereby making it erroneous for the lower court to find this part of the facts charged.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Since the crime of intrusion upon residence is a de facto legal interest to protect the peace of residence, whether the resident or manager has the right to reside in or manage the building, etc.

The establishment of a crime does not depend on the establishment of a crime, and even if a person who has access to the building is permitted due to the relationship with the resident or manager, if the act of entering the building was committed in spite of the explicit or presumed intention of the resident or manager (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do2595, Aug. 23, 2007). Comprehensively taking into account the evidence duly adopted and investigated, the defendant operated the first floor of the building of this case managed by D from August 27, 2005 to December 3, 2015, while the defendant operated the first floor of the building of this case managed by D from around December 27, 2015, the defendant was notified of the termination of the lease contract from the damaged person and lost in the lawsuit against the owner of the building. Even after that, the defendant did not leave the building, compulsory execution was conducted on September 21, 2016.