The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the intrusion of a structure, although the defendant entered the representative meeting of apartment occupants at the time of the case, there was no bruption by the staff of the apartment management office, and there was no intention to intrude into the structure, since he did not receive any clothing from the staff of the apartment management office.

B. As to the obstruction of business, the Defendant did not attend the meeting room to the extent that it was unreasonable for him to see the contents of the meeting, and there is no fact that this part of this part of this part of this part of this case, “ shall be present, but this part of this case shall not be able to see, on his hand, it does not interfere with business by any other means.

2. Determination:

A. As to the intrusion of a structure, the crime of intrusion upon a structure is de facto protecting the peace of the dwelling. Thus, if a building managed by a person enters the building against the explicit or implied intent of the manager, the crime of intrusion on the structure is established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do963, May 24, 2012). According to the evidence duly adopted and duly examined by the lower court, the head of the apartment management office of this case and its employees notified the Defendant that “the outside person cannot attend the meeting” and the Defendant’s employees are “not allowed to attend the meeting,” and they prevented the Defendant from entering the meeting room. Nevertheless, the fact that the Defendant entered the meeting room is recognizable. As such, the Defendant’s entry of the representative meeting of the occupants against the explicit will of the manager constitutes the crime of intrusion on the structure.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the obstruction of business affairs, and the witness D, E, and F’s statement that there is no reason to reject credibility, the defendant was not a resident of the apartment of this case, but a resident of the apartment of this case and was not entitled to attend or express his opinion. The defendant was before the commencement of the meeting.